On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, comex wrote: > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> Gratuitous arguments: >> 1. G.'s win announcements would have awarded wins in the order >> Red players, Purple players, Green players, unrelated to >> comex's ordering. > > Oh, after rereading Rule 2188, you're right; it's clearly meant to > apply to a specific (singular) proposal. It was my belief that due to > the wording, the first announcement awarded a win to everyone, and the > second two were ineffective.
Ah well you missed your chance at a bribe. There were 4+ non-Green winners, by making them the 4 of the last 5 champions, you could have made any green player the final speaker :). Of course I missed that when I ordered the win announcements, too... -G.
