comex wrote:
On 12/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The argument against blue mark awards for excess CFJing rests on the
interpretation that section (-b), by mentioning a circumstance that is
a subset of the trigger for (+b), implicitly "notes" that (+b)'s award
does not occur in that more specific situation. I contend that that
is an unjustified interpretation, reading way more into (-b) than is
written there.
Do you have a suggestion for what else the except-as-noted-below
clause could mean?
Otherwise, as that bit is rather unclear, the best interests of the
game are that the rule work as intended. H. Murphy, what was the
intent of that clause?
The intent was for the first clause in (+b) to refer to the first clause
in (-b). Compare Rule 1871, which uses the following basic form:
If X, then Z, except in the situation discussed in the next
sentence. If X and Y, then Z'.
to Rule 2176, which uses this one:
If X, then Z, except as noted below.
(some text unrelated to X)
If X and Y, then Z'.
(some more text unrelated to X)
