Given the unusual complexity of these cases, I'd suggest that whoever
is assigned to judge them discuss eir proposed judgement before making
it official. E is of course free to act with judicial independence, I
just think that this might help avoid having a ton of motions to
reconsider.
-Aris
On F
How about:
1. “All pure active players could have won by announcement on the Effective
Date under rule 2580”
and
2. “Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game by announcement
under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the expungement of Trigon’s
blot”
and
3. “Trigon, twg, and L wo
The second one could use an "only".
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 08:01 D Margaux wrote:
> I would suggest a slight amendment and calling both CFJs at the same time,
> with the suggestion that both be assigned to the same judge. Probably most
> efficient that way. My suggested CFJs are:
>
> > “All pure
The term of art for this is to request "linked" CFJs (this used to be
rules-official, but now it's just game custom).
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> I would suggest a slight amendment and calling both CFJs at the same time,
> with the suggestion that both be assigned to the same judge
I would suggest a slight amendment and calling both CFJs at the same time, with
the suggestion that both be assigned to the same judge. Probably most efficient
that way. My suggested CFJs are:
> “All pure active players could have won by announcement on the Effective Date
> under rule 2580"
an
Perhaps we could call a CFJ about the set vs. individual interpretations
and then, if set is chosen, we could call another one about clusivity.
A potential wording for the first would be "All players could have won
by announcement under rule 2580" and one for the second could be "VJ
Rada, D Ma
I think this is an admirably clear way to put it. I personally had in mind the
set/inclusive interpretation.
The “individual” interpretation would make each slate’s winning chances depend
in part upon which slates happen to have impure players. That seems undesirable
to me, because the player
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > ATMunn (A, C): I win the game.
> I realized also, don't I have a blot? I assume I can expunge it, but I haven't
> yet.
Missed that - unfortunately the rule self-repealed now so it's too late to
try again.
> > If
I understand more theories are the last thing we probably need right now
but oh well.
Let me make a chart for reference.
A and B B and C C and A
- - -
VJ Rada L.Cuddles
Margaux CoronaAris
PSS TrigonMurphy
G.twg ATMunn
In
On 10/9/2018 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
ATMunn (A, C): I win the game.
I realized also, don't I have a blot? I assume I can expunge it, but I
haven't yet.
If so, for someone in B, that means someone in (A, C) can win, which
means someone in (C) can win, does this block people in (B) from
wi
Ok, Here's my catalog of events. Want to see if we can condense cases
before figuring out what raft of CFJs are needed.
Corona, Trigon, VJ Rada start out with Blots, therefore CANNOT win.
Announcements made (including Slates of announcers):
Trigon (B, C): I cause the Slate B players to wi
11 matches
Mail list logo
