[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Let's look at those individually. The ambiguities are pretty straightforward, and should have been anticipated.

I found none of them ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

These are things that can easily be specified, to guide teams and officials.

No, not 'easily'. When rules are going to be picked apart as much as they are, specificity in this manner creates well more problems than it solves.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

(This is also annoying because it's a largely useless requirement.)

This opinion is entirely moot to the conversation. "I find this rule annoying" is not a discussion I'm interested in having.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Is your understanding of that likeness universal?

It doesn't have to be. It just has to be universal enough to be predictable by those who need to incorporate the rule into their design process. (Which again, I would like to emphasize that 118 did very well.)

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

(And in case your insight about obviousness was a flippant rather than serious response, can you articulate what the meaningful likeness is?)

I was being serious, and I've already articulated the meaningful likeness. That you disagree does not negate the statement.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Does it lead to useful, inescapable conclusions that help satisfy the questions I described above?

"Inescapable" is a bar set far too high. Nothing you or I or anyone else has said on this thread or any other about game rules is "inescapable".

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

In other words, by observing the interpretation of one of these things, are you sufficiently informed about how the interpretation of the others will proceed?

I have yet to be wrong when interpreting FIRST rules described by the "reasonably astute observer" metric. So the evidence points to 'yes'.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

(Also, 118 would be disappointed at your implicit characterization of them, I'm certain.)

I don't believe they would -- they were trying to game the rules to the best of their ability, and good for them. Nothing about that characterization is an insult. They should be rightly proud of what they did, and that they did so in a way that their risk was calculated and inherently mitigated.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Even if FIRST did not intend for us to be talking about the law, one can't help but draw the obvious parallels.

I can help but draw the parallel, because it's entirely unneeded.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

(Incidentally, "I know it when I see it" isn't a test for obscenity; it's preceded by an apologetic statement that a good definition of such a test escaped Justice Stewart, and that in that case, he was relying on his own instinctual reaction rather than a formal set of criteria.

Yes, exactly. The entire point is that it's difficult to articulate but easy to ascertain.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

(In other words, a team member might think that as long as they can describe their reasoning in a way that makes them appear reasonably astute, the inspector will grant them a pass.)

As I said, I find the fact that anyone might come to that conclusion downright astounding.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Another possibility:

Yes, indeed, you can come up with a gazillion possible interpretations. Your job, though, in reading the rules, is to come up with the most probable one.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

By that logic, doesn't a referee (likely not a generic layman in their own right) have to adopt their impression of the thought process of a hypothetical individual to make the call? How is that reasonable, or even predictable?

Yes, they do. It's reasonable and predictable because that's what refs do -- they enforce rules and make judgement calls in doing so.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Besides, it's a more complex question than what the author "most likely" meant.

No, it isn't.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

You have to think about cases that are less likely, but still plausible

True. ...and then determine which is most likely.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

There's nothing wrong with asking FIRST some of the things you alluded to in an effort to narrow the solution space a bit.

Also true. Which is what was done, and the answer given was the "reasonably astute observer" test, which everyone should have taken for the generality that it is.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Either use precise language, or construct the requirement in a way that precision is immaterial.

Have you ever written a game? I don't believe that you have a good grasp on just how difficult it is to do that -- and how unnecessary in many situations.