On 1/26/2020 7:38 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > Alexis wrote: >> I'm not sold on this, or on the precedent. >> >> R2125 is clear that actions can only be performed by the methods >> *explicitly* specified. It seems to me that it closes the door to methods >> of performing actions being specified by implication, even by necessary >> implication. I think it requires a conclusion that zombies are broken (cf. >> the text of the rules taking precedence). > > I would have said that auction-as-a-method was *explicitly* specified, > just not *clearly* specified. IOW, although its meaning is probably not > obvious on a cursory inspection - and I don't think it was the intention > of the original author, either - I don't see any other plausible > interpretation of the text in R2545. "An Auction is a way" (syn. method) > "for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency"; it just > *is*, there's no subjectivity or subtle implication to it.
Similar to the precedent of CFJ 3659 which found that something could be "unambiguous" but not "clear": https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3659 (that's my personal favorite among all the win-by-Apathy attempts I've ever seen btw). However, the dictionary definition of "explicit" also seems to embody clarity: "explicit: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt" or "explicit: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent". -G.
