On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Pavitra wrote: >> Nice try, but R217 actually says this: >> Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or >> unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, >> past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the >> game. >> >> In particular, "the text is ... inconsistent" here. Therefore we are >> fully justified in using CSJI* to determine precedence.
> Furthermore, it is in the best interests of Agora that this CFJ be ruled > UNDECIDABLE, ... I still think that it's straightforward that statements of fact on what CAN or CANNOT be done are claims of precedence "in general", so common sense would allow Cretans to be used for conflicts within a rule. Though I agree there's no particular good-of-the-game argument against UNDECIDABLE. -G.
