On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by > saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder > that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also > note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a > duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 > *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and > CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not > 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal > effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I > wouldn't expect 4st to know about them.
Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago at this point). That said, I suspect the word in R2029 is currently undefined: I don't think "a definition that was in place at the time the rule was adopted" is one of the things that we can legally use to interpret the rules. (In fact, given that rules of lower power can't outright define terms in higher-power rules – just clarify them – it may be very hard to define a term in a power-4 rule at all if it has no common meaning, and after this much time, I doubt it has a common meaning.) -- ais523
