--- Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/8/06, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rule 698/14 (Power=1) says "A player who is inactive or unready is > > ineligible to judge CFJs", so this would additionally mean that CFJ > > 1590 is FALSE. > > > > (That rule quote is taken from the September SLR, but I can't see > > anywhere where that rule has been amended since then.) > > Rule 698 was recently amended by proposal 4867: > http://www.periware.org/agora/view_proposal.php?id=4867 > > I'm not sure whether the Rulekeepor has incorporated that proposal > yet. Oddly enough, the new version still mentions activity, but it > now states the inverse of what you quoted. >
Well, the full part I selected the quote from was: "(a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em ineligible. A player who is inactive or unready is ineligible to judge CFJs." The last sentence, (my earlier quote) was the removed part by 4867. Do you think the first sentence is strong enough basis to support my idea? It *does* still restrict its domain to active players. God bless, The Grey Knight [ greyfire island ] :: http://www.greyfire.org __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
