On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Human Point Two judges CFJs 1682 and 1683 FALSE.
>>
>> Arguments:
>>
>> The first paragraph of Rule 1742 consistently uses plurals. I interpret
>> this as requiring such agreements to be made among a set of two or more
>> players.
>
> I call for the appeal of both these judgements. By the same argument,
> we could easily say any of the following:
I suppose I should have said that R1742 explicitly says "among
themselves", implying interaction between two or more players. If
these judgements are remanded, I'll likely re-judge accordingly.
I don't see how that changes anything. If the rule were specific
about number, it could easily say "zero or more", "one or more", or
"exactly 42"; and it would still be consistent with the usage of the
phrase "among themselves".
-root
