Yep, pretty much; although that could also mean that the clause "*Any* ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect." was never actually added in the first place, because that's another interpretation that keeps the game playable, just deferring to a different standard of what "ambiguity" should be.
It's kind of hilarious how ambiguity itself, for Agora, is ambiguous. On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:00 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < [email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 00:55 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Sorry, I meant practical for the purposes of applying "*Any* ambiguity > in > > the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and > > without effect." > > > > Of course, this compromise-based definition of how ambiguous something > > needs to be in order to be ambiguous for Agora can change and vary and > I'm > > not entirely sure what that definition is supposed to be right now, but I > > do feel like it's very likely to fall into one that I don't agree with > > personally but that I have no problem playing along with, because it's > all > > compromise anyways. > > We have a rule about how to interpret the rules (rule 217); we need to > rely on that when determining what the "any ambiguity in the > specification of a rule change…" rule means. I agree that "any" has a > clear meaning, but "ambiguity" doesn't – and the rule 217 tests make it > clear that it should be interpreted in a way that makes the game > playable. > > -- > ais523 >
