Actually, #12 and #20 (by Aris) are suitable different, that I'll address
#12.
Rule #6 is very precise. Counselors must "address each other" in a certain
way and everyone must "address each other" with respect.
"Us" (unlike "you") is not a form of address - in fact it's the opposite,
it's speaking *for* a group of people, not *to* a group of people.
The rest of the rule details how certain people must be "referred to"
(for which Us would qualify) but the detail list doesn't include
counselors in general.
So it's valid.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Also in the tournament-bug category: I deeply regret not making a 24-hour
> limit on all challenges, not just impossibility-based ones.
>
> I'm tempted (in character) to find some kind of statute-of-limitations
> appropriate.
>
> Be that as it may, I'll opine on our Pronoun Trouble (both in this one
> and in Aris's) together - probably not for a few hours at least though.
>
> Your other question: "making" an argument includes invalid ones, so 10
> regardless of validity.
>
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > I believe that this should have been ruled INVALID as the "us"
> > references other Counselors and thus should have referenced them with
> > appropriate respect. Additionally, I ask the court whether INVALID
> > arguments will be counted towards the 10 non-procedural arguments.
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:03 AM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I present the following procedural argument to the court:
> > >
> > > Your most humble and gracious honour: the ridiculous requirements on us
> > > 411
> > > regarding the f0rm of our arguments are piling up, detracting from the
> > > quality of our arguments. I therefore ask the court to rule that no
> > > further
> > > such requirements shall be imposed until at least 10 non-procedural
> > > arguments are made.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:44 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I present the following procedural argument to the court:
> > > >
> > > > Your Honor, My Fellow Counselors V.J. Rada and Aris seem to have no
> > > > respect for the Great and Ancient Nomics. I ask the court that all
> > > > Counselors SHALL refer to FRC and Agora as the Great and Ancient Nomic
> > > > of the FRC and the Great and Ancient Nomic of Agora, respectively, in
> > > > order to show respect not just to persons, but also for the Great and
> > > > Ancient Nomics. Additionally, your honor, I ask the court that @11
> > > > Counselors SHALL NOT use "wildly non-standard 5pe11ink" when
> > > > addressing individuals, Great and Ancient Nomics, or the court, as
> > > > doing so lessens the respect shown to the addressed person or entity.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > From V.J. Rada
> >
>
>
