fit into our classification (more details can be found in this section and in [@report:semantics]), they have a sufficiently unique naming and further annotations are not necessary. We are thus left with admissible, preferred and complete. The BAF approach follows the idea that we can accept arguments that are not acyclic in our opinion and we allow our opponent to do the same. The ADF semantics we have developed in [@inproc:adm] also shares this view. Therefore, they will receive the $cc-$ prefix. On the other hand, AFN and EAS semantics do not permit cycles both in extensions and as attackers. Consequently, the semantics following this line of reasoning will be prefixed with $aa-$. Please note we believe that a non–uniform approach can also be suitable in certain situations. By non–uniform we mean not accepting cyclic arguments, but still treating them as valid attackers and so on (i.e. $ca-$ and $ac-$). However, in this paper we would like to focus only on the two perspectives mentioned before.

Conflict–free and naive semantics
---------------------------------

In the Dung setting, conflict–freeness meant that the elements of an extension could not attack one another. Providing an argument with the required support is then a separate condition 