Any extra clause like this I predict will cause more problems than it will solve. We generally know what ‘may’ means. Codifying exactly what English words mean is an endless rabbit hole that likely won’t even stop Cuddlebeam CfJs.

It will stop them from passing.  You guys passed a few of them last dynasty, apparently.

My concern with this is that the ruleset cannot be assumed to be follow Grice’s Maxim of Quantity. It quite clearly does not always provide exactly as much information as necessary to be understood, but rather is frequently unclear. The glossary seems sufficiently clear to me.

Interpreting something as if it provides the required information does not necessarily mean that it can’t be ambiguous or unclear.  It just means, in that case, that you can interpret it to many any one of the ambiguous meanings.  This just means that you can’t assume the presence of information that is not actually given.  This is basically how we play already, it’s just an explicit codification.

Were there any passed last dynasty of any real importance?

I don’t know, but perhaps if they stop getting passed they will stop being proposed.

The only one passed last dynasty that you might object to was the infinite well water CfJ, and Grice’s Maxims may have been unrelated to the actual issue, which is that the ruleset said both that each Villager “may carry up to three Remedies” and that “may carry more than one of the same Remedy”. If it said I “may carry 3” and also that I “may carry 4”, what’s the maximum limit on my number of remedies?

That said, I do regret voting for that CfJ. The rule’s intention was clear, just not its literal wording.

“Up to three” and “more than one of the same” do not contradict each other.  Obviously, though, if it says “may carry 3” and “may carry 4” it means that you may carry four.  That wasn’t the case then, though, (AFAIK since I wasn’t playing then).

Good point (them not contradicting), another reason I think my vote was in error.

I think the ruleset is fine as-is, and going forward I’ll just be more proactive in voting down silly CfJs.

imo Nomic is about literal wording but then again people can vote for or against CfJ’s or stuff with whatever reason (or no reason at all) they want. It just kinda hinges on what people want, shrug.

so that this doesn’t have to wait another day in the queue.

While the topic is open:

I’d personally prefer seeing scams based on mechanical rule interactions that exist even when the rules are interpreted as intended. But as you say, it all depends on what people will vote for.