On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I CFJ on the statement "A non-player who is a party to a contest is a >> contestant in that contest." > > I'd argue for TRUE, although it may be technically IRRELEVANT; both > R2234 (directly) and R2199 (indirectly, because you can't award points > to a non-player) base their effects on the number of players who are > contestants. I'd argue that the ordinary language definition would > include all parties who aren't the contestmaster, and R2234's "players > who were contestants" might imply that there could be contestants who > aren't players.
It's not immediately relevant, but it's not irrelevant because, if one of the parties who was never a player during March were to register now, it would affect the number of points to be awarded. -root
