Followup after quick rules search: we use "clear" a heck of a lot in the
rules, for things we have varying standards for (and for which standards
have varied over time). It *may* be a pretty weak standard the way we're
currently using it, so maybe that's not a scam-killer.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > This seems to be an argument for replacing (or complementing) "clear" by
> > "unobfuscated" in the relevant rule text.
>
> Huh, actually, a leading definition of "obfuscated" is "unclear":
> 'obfuscate: render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.'
>
> I don't think anyone was arguing that this attempt wasn't intentionally
> obfuscated - while D Margaux's counterarguments show you can point to
> each required element and say "it's there" (and meets the standard for
> "unambiguous"), the net effect is obfuscation.
>
> So if the "clear" in R1728's "unambiguously and clearly" is going to mean
> anything at all going forward, the judgement should tell us exactly what
> "clear" means - does it include "unobfuscated"? Do we have to amend the
> rule to "super-abundantly clear and we really mean it"?
