I am grateful for the thoughtful consideration given by Judge Aris to the
issues raised in this CFJ. I beileve there are a few sections of the
judgement that may be questionable, and I respectfully offer the following
comments to suggest that the judgement should be TRUE:
* * *
>>>What no one realized (or at least said publicly) at the time was
that D. Margaux had attempted to intend to declare Victory by Apathy
Without Objection.
For the sake of accuracy, I note that twg understood my intent to Declare
Apathy and e decided to share in the victory rather than object.
>>>For something to be said "unambiguously" is for it to be said
in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted. To put it formally, X is
unambiguous if and only if the resolution operation, applied to X,
completes and selects one possible meaning. This meaning can be extremely
difficult to understand.
I agree with this. I think this is well put.
>>>Next, I turn to the question of what clarity means. It must not mean
unambiguity, because in that case specifying that both are required would be
redundant.
I do not think this follows.
The logic here applies the rule against surplusage, but there are
exceptions to that rule. One exception applies to "legal doublets"--
pairs of words that have duplicative meanings ("each and every,"
"fit and proper," "terms and conditions," "aid and abet"). It is
well recognized that legal doublets are often pleonastic--
they use more words than necessary to convey the desired meaning.
In particular, see the case of Ex parte Gorely, 4 De G L & S 477 (1864),
which famously described an Act of Parliament as "redundant and
pleonastic" (ironically using a redundant legal doublet).
>>>It is important to understand that this definition of clarity
applies only when
both "unambiguous" and "clear" are specified. In
other cases, "clear" may take
on some amount of the meaning of
"unambiguous", rather than "obvious",
but I'll leave that to be
decided by a future CFJ.
I think it is unwise to use the rule against surplusage in this way,
because it leads to some odd outcomes.
In particular, we have here an admittedly _unambiguous_ statement of intent.
Under the judgement, that statement of intent _might_ have been
satisfactory if the Rule required only a "clear" statement. But the
additional requirement that the intent be "unambiguous" defeats this
admittedly unambiguous intent. And it leaves open the possibility
that a similarly unambiguous but non-obvious statement would
pass muster under a rule that requires clarity but _not_
unambiguity.
To me, that result seems very counterintuitive and undesirable.
>>>The word "clearly" can mean "unambiguously", but just as often it
means "obviously". For something to be obvious means that its approximate
meaning must be easy to understand.
I think this could plausibly go either way. But I respectfully suggest
that this logic should apply to all instances of "clear," and not only
instances where both "clear" and "unambiguous" are both specified. Otherwise,
you have the odd result that only _unambiguous_ statements are rejected
when an added requirement of "unambiguity" is specified, which seems
perverse.
That is why I think this CFJ and the "reiterate vote" CFJ should both be
judged using the same definition of clarity--and they both should
come out with the same result.
In the Apathy CFJ, there is some indirection, but it is easy to discern what
I was doing if you actually look at the rules that were cited in the
statement of intent. There is a similar indirection at play in the
"vote-reiterate" CFJ. There, it is easy to understand what vote is expressed
if you look at the previous messages that are being reiterated. In both
cases, you need to look at another text to discern what the message
expresses, and in that sense they are both "unclear" (i.e., not obvious). But
in another sense of "clear," they both definitely and unambiguously express
the a valid game action (even if it is not obvious from the text
alone what exactly that game action is without reference to some other
text).
* * *
This is a fun CFJ! Even if this fails to persuade you, I am
grateful for your careful consideration of these arguments.
