Format for e-mail

History:

My intent when writing the rule was to create four limits
for each contest (X-awarded, Y-awarded, X-revoked, Y-revoked). The
text of the rule seems open to multiple interpretations however.

I will immediately dispense with the interpretation that the limit is a
real bound on a complex number of points, as "exceed" has no
mathematical definition with respect to complex numbers as it does with
respect to the reals.


R2233 reads, in part:

      The contestmaster of a contest CAN and SHALL award and revoke
      points as directed by that contract up so long as the total
      number of points awarded or revoked on any axis do not exceed
      that contest's threshold index. Awards and revocations that
      counteract a previous award or revocation for that contest that
      was not in accordance with it's contract or that exceeded the
      contest's threshold index do not count against this limit.

The key words here appear to be "total", "any", and the "or" in "awarded
or revoked".


I interpret "any" axis to mean any given axis; that is, each axis.
x-points and y-points are individually constrained.


The plurality of the verb "do not exceed" implies that the subject of
the key sentence is not the (singular) "total number of points". It
cannot be "points", which is clearly enclosed in a prepositional phrase;
could "or" be interpreted in such a way as to make "the total ...
awarded or revoked" plural?

I can imagine no reasonable interpretation for "or" other than that
points awarded and points revoked both count towards the same total. The
use of "do" rather than "does" must be treated as a R754(1) difference
in grammar or dialect.


"Total" has no further qualifiers or constraints on it, and I can see no
excuse in the text of the rule for inventing any. In particular, the
"total number of points awarded or revoked" on a particular axis is
totaled over all players, over all time, and over all contracts or other
mechanisms for awarding or revoking points.

Rule 1586 suggests to me that x-points should be considered the same
thing as pre-Axis points, which implies that no contract has ever
awarded x-points.

I suggest ignoring the text of this rule and letting the incorrect
obvious interpretation ratify until the situation can be fixed
legislatively.