On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Does anyone have an argument as to why this is not in fact > UNDECIDEABLE? I'm thinking that there must be exactly one Speaker, but > there is nothing to indicate who that Speaker is, so it may as well be > Michael Norrish just as it might be, say, Dave Levac.
Don't listen to me, but it is my opinion (and just my opinion, it's not like it says this in the rules or anything) that where the text of the rules is silent, it should be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. Just a thought; feel free to ignore this. More serious arguments: what we have here is an ambiguity in the rules, and an ambiguity in the rules *never* makes UNDECIDABLE appropriate. The judge ought to weigh the evidence on both sides and decide whether TRUE or FALSE would make sense. —Machiavelli
