On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 17:40, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:34 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: >> You seem to be missing the point here. This is not a matter of what is >> true and what is false. In this case, because of the way the rule is >> worded, there are two possible ways to interpret the rule. Both are >> equally viable ways to interpret this rule. Agora benefits from having >> a consensus on how the rule is interpreted. Without such a consensus >> why bother playing a game together? we could all just interpret the >> rules however we liked, and all have our own little 'perfect' version >> of Agora without other people to mess it up, right? >> >> In such a case it falls to the judge's opinion to determine which of >> the equally viable ways to interpret the rule should govern. That is >> what I have done in this case. > > Last time the issue came up, there was a huge argument (because it was > connected with a scam, IIRC); instead of a simple "the rule is > ambiguous", there was a large discussion with something like 5 or 6 > possibilities discussed, and an analysis of which ones were and weren't > consistent with the rules as a whole. I think it's rare to get a true > ambiguity in the rules that requires R217 to resolve. > Really? I think its far more common than you seem to indicate. In any case, if there isn't an ambiguity, if both interpretations are not equally valid, then how about some evidence to support one over the other? None has been provided, only coppro's (the caller) and my (the judge) opinions.
BobTHJ
