Fascinating. In US law, courts sometimes require a "clear statement" that the legislature intended a particular outcome before it will interpret a statute in a particular way. See, e.g., Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (rejecting a particular interpretation unless congress "mak[es] its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute"). I think an obfuscated statement of intent would be "clear" in that sense, as long as the intent is apparent once the obfuscated statement is decoded.
That interpretation does not collapse the distinction between "clear" and "unambiguous," I think, because a statement can be unambiguous (having a single sense), but that single sense could be vague or indeterminate (and thus not clear). But I can see legitimate arguments on all sides, I think. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:04 AM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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"? >
