On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 03:33, Edward Murphy <emurph...@zoho.com> wrote: > There was a past rule and/or CFJ to the effect that this type of > ambiguous ordering is still effective, provided that the choice > doesn't make any substantive difference to the gamestate. (In this > case, either order would lead to D. Margaux earning a total of 10 > coins. Contrast e.g. a hypothetical rule where the judge's first > salary of the week also gave some coins to the submitter of the > relevant case.)
Thanks. I'll assume it worked, then, though I'm curious about the reasoning. - Falsifian
