On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 6/13/2020 10:07 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> On 6/13/2020 9:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > >>> In CFJ 1500, the Court found that words should be > >>> interpreted by their common language definition after a definition in > >>> the rules has been overturned. The Court presently believes that this > >>> is somewhat misguided: while the common language definition should be > >>> used in any interpretation, the past definition in the rules and its > >>> historical usage within Agora should also be looked at, where > >>> reasonable, as part of the game custom criterion. > >> > >> I'm very concerned about this bit and considering a motion. This greatly > >> expands the scope of what we have to remember about past rules, greatly > >> reduces clarity to new players, and considering there's many common terms > >> that we drag into rules-definitions (e.g. "refer" or whatever) they should > >> revert really quickly to common definitions when removed from the rules. > >> > >> Shiny was removed from the ruleset in early 2018. That's two years. > >> What's the limit? > >> > >> -G. > >> > > > > I thought that might be controversial. I think that the limit is the > > point at which almost no one remembers the definition. Here, the > > context and the recency both implied the definition. In the instance > > of "refer", as long as we don't leave the mechanic after returning the > > definition, it will almost immediately return to solely its common > > language definition.
I may end up overturning this to some extent in CFJ 3846. I think there's a better way of handling language interpetation than a case by case full four factors analysis. I'm not sure whether we want to move to reconsider. -Aris
