On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Caller's arguments: If the awards are treated as three ordered > actions, then ais523 and Pavitra got 20 points each (VALID but > ILLEGAL, they should have only gotten 18 each) and comex got > nothing (INVALID). If they are treated as three unordered actions, > then the whole thing fails due to ambiguity; if they are treated as > one single action, then the whole thing also fails. > > Caller's evidence: the above-quoted message.
I'd call an equity case here but I can't without breaking the rules because I don't know Werewolves' set of parties.
