On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Hmm, there's an awful lot of contradictions in CFJs 1709, 1754, and
> your proto, surrounding the definition of "player". The word "player",
> *when used in R101*, can either means player in the R869 sense ("someone
> registered") or player in the common definition ("one who is playing"),
> but not both in the same rule (that goes against common sense). Since
> R869 is lower powered than R101, we could legally use use either
> definition in R101 (the new R754), and CFJ1709 suggests both uses are
> relevant to the rules in general.
>
> The problem is that CFJ 1753 takes R101 player to mean "someone
> registered", your proto takes it to mean "one who is playing".
I'm interpreting "player" using the R869 definition, but "continue to
play" using the ordinary-language definition.
Arguably this is a bad idea.
