The goal of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing is to improve testing practices, but their impact on practice appears spotty. Self-regulation clearly fails in some instances. The establishment of an external agency to oversee testing practices and adherence to the Standards would face substantial hurdles, and the ambiguity of many of the Standards would hobble such an organization if one were created. Many of the Standards are general statements of principle, and past controversies make clear that we in the field often disagree about the reasons for them, their applicability to specific cases, and their practical meaning in specific contexts. This paper argues that the field should follow two approaches to lessen this ambiguity. First, using journals, conferences, and other vehicles, we should foster more frequent and more protracted debate about the practical meaning of key Standards, such as 13.6 and 13.7, which mandate that a decision that will have a "major impact" on a student should not be based on a single score. Second, future revisions of the Standards should use concrete examples of testing practices to clarify the meaning of the Standards, much as the legal system uses case law to clarify the meaning of the general principles embodied in statutes.