On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> All first-class players who were bound by that contract did have a
> reasonable opportunity to review it. "Open to all first-class players"
> doesn't mean they /are/ bound by it, only that they /could/ be bound by
> it, hence it fails to trigger R101(v).
B
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
Then we shall interpret the first-class player clause as something
completely different, where intent is the more important thing?
Not intent, but specific practicality of what first-class players are.
If we take the whole term "allow any fi
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> If the dethronement rule "allows" a dethronement, then why didn't the
> contracts "allow" all players to join? Both actions are technically
> possible but (usually!) not feasible.
By that logic, you could make any sort of "technically feasible" contract:
"Any
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Your Vladivostok rule "allows" a dethronement, but R101 forbids the rule
> from functioning, so the net effect of the rules is that dethronement
> isn't allowed.
>
> In your case, your contract strictly speaking "allowed" all players to
> review the
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> The point was the usage of 'allow'...
Your Vladivostok rule "allows" a dethronement, but R101 forbids the rule
from functioning, so the net effect of the rules is that dethronement isn't
allowed.
In your case, your contract strictly speaking "allowed" all play
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Addendum: this is an issue with allowing general inquiry cases rather
> than requiring callers to demonstrate specific relevance or standing.
> In a real sense, the rules in question would conflict, but the conflict
> wouldn't be evident until an i
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
>> This rule does not 'allow', as in make reasonably possible restriction of a
>> person's rights or privileges. Nevertheless it 'allows' it by legislating
>> it. Does Rule 101, which claims to "take precedence over any
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> This rule does not 'allow', as in make reasonably possible restriction of a
> person's rights or privileges. Nevertheless it 'allows' it by legislating
> it. Does Rule 101, which claims to "take precedence over any rule which
> would allow restrictions of a pe
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If we take the whole term "allow any first-class player", we can use the
> reasonable abilities of an attentive first-class player as a starting
> point.
Proto-rule:
Any person may, by publishing the text of page 106 of the 1961 Vladivostok
telepho
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> Then we shall interpret the first-class player clause as something
> completely different, where intent is the more important thing?
Not intent, but specific practicality of what first-class players are.
If we take the whole term "allow any first-class play
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> And I wholeheartedly disagree. If the message would have really
> created a contest then the rules call for no such time limit. Game
> custom should not surpass the rules. I doubt either of you would say
> "You can't exploit that loophole because th
On Nov 13, 2007 1:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What the rules call for is that any first-class player be allowed to
> join the contest, or it's not a contest. To honor that, there must be
> a sufficient period of time during which anybody may join; this was
> decided in CFJ 1777
On Nov 13, 2007 1:28 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I wholeheartedly disagree. If the message would have really
> created a contest then the rules call for no such time limit. Game
> custom should not surpass the rules. I doubt either of you would say
> "You can't exploit that loo
On Nov 13, 2007 12:42 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >By the way, if I were to opine on "what is sufficient time for players to
> >be allowed to join", I would opine that game custom gives a minimal window
> >of 72 hours, as this is the minimal time window that has bee
On Nov 13, 2007 12:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, if I were to opine on "what is sufficient time for players to
> be allowed to join", I would opine that game custom gives a minimal window
> of 72 hours, as this is the minimal time window that has been placed in
> other
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>before its dissolution, and specifically said "all other things being equal"
>which I take to include the timing of the publication of the existence of
>Partnership 1 itself.
I think it is reasonable in this case to take "all other things being
equal" to mean that the rest of
Semi-Evil pseudo-judgements for 1792-1793:
The caller specifically asks what would have happened if the announcement
of Partnership 1's CONTEST had been received 60 seconds and 60 minutes
before its dissolution, and specifically said "all other things being equal"
which I take to include the timi
17 matches
Mail list logo
