[Discussion] Interpretation/Clarification Procedure

[Augustus Lucifer]

Recently we've had in the realm of a gagilliondy-two spats over how something in our most illustrious of documents is interpreted. For those who bowed out of higher maths, a gagilliondy-two is two more than a gagilliondy, and a gagilliondy more than the ridiculous threshold. Basically a lot. The Curia is often cited as being woefully inadequate due to the bureaucracy, but a parcel of bureaucracy is better than a dollop of skulduggery. So I'm curious about the possibility of adding a third procedure to the current repertoire of Decisions/Amendments allowing for a more suitable means of responding to unforeseen circumstance and producing a prevailing interpretation, and that's the point of this discussion. Well, either that or another thread for the discussion of the unscrupulous behavior of 'He Who Shall Not Be Named', I don't spin it I just type it.

I'm sure you're saying "But AL, Amendments are that procedure, change it to clarify it, done and done." Well yeah, Amendments are nice and all when they actually work, but they set themselves in a bit of a predicament. Someone has to devise some new and explicit wording that sits well with two-thirds of the Curia, which doesn't always happen. The result then is we're left in the same ambiguous cesspit we began in, not any more or less assured of how the current wording should be interpreted, just assured that the specific amendment text ain't necessarily it. I'm sure you're saying "But AL, that's where Curator discretion comes in, the Curator will save us." Well that's all fine and dandy for those who agree with a given decision, but ultimately the Curator is a clerical position, not an executive one, and the burden such a decision puts on the incumbent is rather unnecessary. Not to mention the fact that covert operatives could have kidnapped the Curator and installed a puppet comminaziterrorist as part of a scheme to bring harm to babies and disenfranchise the hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobic through antidisestablishmentarianist onomatopoeia. Then what? THINK, PEOPLE!

So how can we devise a better way to agree on a meaning of current words without having to supermajoragree on spiffy new ones? Obviously the notion of 'Curator discretion' can remain as a facilitation mechanism, insuring everything is not entirely stalled while a broader ruling is awaited, but what of that broader ruling? One possibility which seems much more doable, is to have folks offer different interpretations and reconcile similar ones, then pit the differing ones against each other in a vote and whichever receives the most votes is the current interpretation until overturned or amended. The idea being that it's nonsensical to persist in blatant ambiguity if we can devise a better way for the Curia to be party to such a decision. It's not all roses and Heinz' undergarments though. Trying to mitigate exploitation so that such a procedure isn't used as an 'amendment bypass' is paramount to it being a serviceable solution.

Dance. I mean, discuss.