On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:48 PM Owen Jacobson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 28, 2017, at 11:51 PM, VJ Rada <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Cards issued for reasons that don't break the rules or cards that are > > obviously inappropriate are INNEFFECTIVE. The Dive rule which Alexis > > used says "Notwithstanding rule 2426, the reason for the card > > MAY be any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a > > violation of the rules, against the person to whom the Card is > > issued." > > > > That's a MAY not a CAN. So the card was ineffective because it is > > obviously and facially inappropriate to issue a black card to a > > player. This is the definitive answer, all other answers are wrong. > > I favour this CFJ. > > -o
It's arguably within the scope of the existing CFJ, and I'd prefer to get this entire mess cleaned up if possible. Do you have arguments? I would be inclined to accept them as authoritative and rule accordingly if they seem basically reasonable. -Aris
