Sorry, that was probably a bad example. G. has much more eloquently explained what I mean.
"Any at all full stop" ambiguity is a whole lot of ambiguity, is my point. It's incredibly easy for anything to gain any iota of ambiguity. But, yes, I believe that we don't interpret it that way, rather, the ambiguity needs to be "reasonable", but then the discussion becomes what *is* reasonable ambiguity? It's subjective and it depends on what the group deciding it (Agora itself) feels like it should be. And I'm fine with that. On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:15 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/10/23 14:13, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > I didn't mean that, but as you can see now, we've just created ambiguity > in > > that I might mean what you believe I do, or not. > > > > It's too easy for "any" sort of ambiguity to happen.*Any*. > That's not ambiguity in the rule change tho, it's ambiguity in a > discussion adjacent to it. > > Even if it's "easy" for ambiguity to happen, I don't think that means it > happens every single time. I think the ambiguity standard demands at > least two plausible interpretations to be presented. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
