On 6/16/2020 5:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Aris Merchant wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kerim Aydin 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: *plans to fundamentally rethink the way Agorans look at language* > Aris: "Gee, I wonder if this is going to be controversial?"
Controversial or not, if you're doing a "major review of past cases" I don't think we need to file a motion on this one, I think treating your case as a sort of appeals court and say "here's a handful of conflicting CFJs, the current standard is leading to disparate results so let's try a new standard" and not worry about re-hashing the past even if it's very recent. -G.
