[blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Guthrie]

[Nige1]
[2] Do you break the law when you deliberately or carelessly give 
unnecessary unauthorised information? Until I read recent posts by
Maddog and Grattan, I had been under the impression that to do so is an
infraction. Like Stefanie, I feel that it should be discouraged because
it tempts players to rationalize its use.

[Alain Gottcheiner]
For the "deliberately" part, L73B1 clearly says it is disallowed. Posts
from the Pope wouldn't change the text of the laws.

Anyway, it is a good idea to maintain the act of creating UI in a status
of "semi-infraction", that is, something which you should strive to avoid.

A second reason for insisting on its avoidance is that it will create
doubt about whether it was used, whence many TD calls and much
resentment, which is bad for the game.

{Nige2]
In the past, esoteric minutes have altered the official interpretation 
of the laws for an inner circle of top officials (although most ordinary 
directors and all players seem to have been deliberately kept in the 
dark). Do Grattan and Maddog have access to such minutes that explain 
how the intention of the law-makers again conflicts with the law-book's 
English meaning?

Below is what John wrote (to put me right) and what Grattan seems to 
endorse.

[John Probst]
We are NOT required to police the "giving" of UI, just the use of it.
Players don't seem to know the difference.