On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Aaron Goldfein <aarongoldf...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Goethe's Gratuitous arguments in that even if a game action is > twice permitted by the rules, it is unnecessary to explicitly denote which > individual instance of allowance permitted the rule. Had the different forms > of empowering the action led to alternate results, then disambiguation would > be necessary. However, since, as far as the rules are concerned, it did not, > I judge OVERRULE.
Fails; OVERRULE is not a valid judgement. OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement is a valid judgement. Also, note that the other two panelists have judged AFFIRM and REASSIGN. If you enter an OVERRULE judgement, the overall result will be REMAND, which would be rather odd. -root
