* was never added in the first place because it would ossify the game. On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:08 AM Yachay Wayllukuq <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >> >
