On Nov 18, 2007 12:41 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me that CFJ1799 is actually about an *unregulated* action (by rule
> 2125). By rule 101, every player has the right to perform unregulated
> actions. Thus, this CFJ should *probably* be judged either IRRELEVANT or
>
On 11/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because it is nonsensical, UNDECIDABLE is appropriate; see Rule 591.
I think UNDETERMINED is a perfectly appropriate judgement.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> It seems to me that CFJ1799 is actually about an *unregulated* action
> (by rule 2125). By rule 101, every player has the right to perform
> unregulated actions. Thus, this CFJ should *probably* be judged either
> IRRELEVANT or TRUE.
Because it
It seems to me that CFJ1799 is actually about an *unregulated* action (by rule
2125). By rule 101, every player has the right to perform unregulated
actions. Thus, this CFJ should *probably* be judged either IRRELEVANT or
TRUE.
This case, however, seems to come down to the permissibility of an u
4 matches
Mail list logo
