secretsnail wrote:
On 7/24/2022 2:04 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 3:57 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
In any case, the differences of opinion seem intractable at this point;
best to just legislate something acceptable to all sides, and move on
from there.
I think my proposal codifying the invisible requirement would help
somewhat, but it still doesn't get rid of this issue of "coloring". We
shouldn't have to reexamine every new way of saying you take an action in
worry of it not working for some entirely subjective reason, but I'm not
sure if we can legislate that away. It's not very elegant to just codify in
the rules "'I submit the following proposal X times:' doesn't work." and
neither is it to codify that it does work. Is there any general
clarification that would fix this?
Maybe something like "If there is an ambiguity in an attempt to take an
action, where it could either mean an attempt to take a possible action or
an attempt to take an impossible action, it is instead an unambiguous
attempt to take the possible action."
That's broader than what I had in mind (but may still be worthwhile). I
was just thinking more like: "If there would otherwise be an ambiguity
in an attempt to create or otherwise identify or reference one or more
entities, where it could either mean the same instance multiple times or
multiple instances with matching attributes, it is interpreted as an
unambiguous attempt to do the latter."
