On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:36 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > another ribbon". Can you suggest any other interpretation that the > > author of the rule could plausibly have intended? > > > > The intent of the rules is excluded entirely from the list of > considerations in Rule 217.
Personally, I'd argue that 'what it seems like the author intended, based on the text' is largely equivalent as a factor to "common sense". (As opposed to 'what the author claims e intended', or 'what the author actually intended', both of which are definitely excluded.) In particular, I think that applies even in scam-type situations, where the author clearly intended one thing yet the text unambiguously says something else. In those cases, I think "common sense" would counsel going by the intent, but it's overruled because "the text of the rules takes precedence", as well as because literalism is itself a "game custom".
