On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > In every other case, when the Rules say "A player must do X to then do > Y", and there's no explicit defined way to do X, we say "too bad, no Y". > That's the clear custom underlying ISID, and the legalistic style of > Agora in general.
If the Rules say a player must Frobnicate the Foo, then we assume it's a rules-defined term with no external meaning. If they say a player must send a message to a public forum, we use ordinary language to determine what it means to "send a message" (depending on the type of forum). If they say players must not be compelled to "unduly harass" non-players, we don't say harassment cannot exist because it's not defined in the rules. I'm starting to see your point that "reasonably public process" could be interpreted as "reasonably public rules-defined process", but I wouldn't classify such an interpretation as legalistic.
