G. wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, omd wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I intend, without objection from 2 members of Imperial and without
>>> objection from 2 members of Team 4, to move Tiger to Team 4.
>>
>> For each team T, for each team U other than T, for each player P in T,
>> I intend, without two objections from members of T and without two
>> objections from members of U, to flip P's Allegiance from T to U.
>
> I CFJ on the following, barring omd:
> The message quoted in evidence is sufficiently unambiguous and
> clear to qualify as an intent to perform at least one specific
> dependent action.
>
> Arguments:
> This strains the bounds of unambiguity and clarity, given (a) the
> combinatorial number of specified different actions which may be
> beyond a reasonable effort to enumerate; and (b) interpretation for
> a particular person who might object to being flipped in a particular
> way under R1728/30(a). Does it break said bounds?
Gratuitous: According to the latest Referee's report, there are
two 3-player teams and two 4-player teams, so this expands to
3*3 + 3*3 + 4*3 + 4*3 = 42 intents ("each team U other than T"
avoids any intents to "move" someone to eir own team for no net
effect).
