> On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> This was previously assigned to o, but copy/paste messup gave it the wrong
> subject line. This is to make sure there's a clear subject line with the
> assignment.
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> The below CFJ is #3559. I assign it to o.
>>
>> Aris, if you could provide a message link to the proposal in question, it
>> would be appreciated.
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>>> I AP-CFJ on the following:
>>>
>>> The statement "Lines beginning with hashmarks ('#') and comments in
>>> square brackets ('[]') have no effect on the behavior of this
>>> proposal. They are not part of any rules
>>> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
>>> have been removed before its resolution.", as it appears near the
>>> beginning of the contracts proposal I sent to agora-discussion, has
>>> the clearly intended effect.
>>>
>>> Arguments:
>>>
>>> The last paragraph of Rule 106 implies that this works. Also,
>>> proposals are interpreted as human readable text, so it makes sense
>>> that portions could be commented out.I’m not convinced r. 106 is the right angle for this. Instead, I’m tempted to look at game tradition. We’ve got a long history of commentary and non-normative guidance in proposals, and I see no obvious reason in the rules that that commentary cannot be set off with punctuation for clarity’s sake. I’m initially inclined to judge it TRUE. However, I’ll leave this up for a few days and do some more research before rendering judgement. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
