I'm not sure where I stand, but I'm split enough on this issue (and
others found the win pretty clear and clever) that I'd support a moot
if desired.
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> 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.
