comex wrote: > 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.
I think the list of parties here is up to date: http://agora-notary.wikidot.com/the-werewolves-of-nomic-crossing though the text does not yet reflect changes made in November.
