On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> > read: prevents us humanities majors from having to know what
> > octonian space and lattice points are
>
> I agree. While for deviant cases I believe that now and then more
> offshoot things can definitely arise, the rules themselves should
> be as layman as possible imo (yet unambiguous and sufficiently
> "complete" to cover gameplay).
In the "old days" we actually explicitly favored mathematical and legal
word usage over "ordinary" uses. From Rule 754/7, circa 2007:
(3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,
and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by
default has the meaning it has in those contexts.
(4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule
by default has its ordinary-language meaning.
As a result, when my previously-mentioned judgement on CFJ 1813 was
overturned by CFJ 1826, it relied on arcane aspects of set theory to
find that "decreasing negatives" was nonsense rather than a net
positive. We later (in 2013) purposefully reversed/removed that
mathematical and legal dominance, in favor of common language.
