On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > Legislative intent isn't particularly useful if it's just the author of > the Rule and the Rule is untested (because everyone who voted for it may > have read it differently, so the question is "whose intent?"). If the > Rule was used once in manner X (because everyone at the time it was first > used agreed that X worked, and discussion around the Rule's adoption > shows that X was the Rule's purpose) then X could be said to be a part > of Agoran custom (intent *and* interpreted use), not just intent. -G.
Agreed. Custom can and should be a guiding factor if the Rules can be interpreted in more than one way. Intent shouldn't enter into it. Or at least, that was the intent of the CFJ Rules when first crafted... :) --Wes
