root wrote: > Now that the matter no longer has any bearing on Partnerships thanks > to the new, improved Rule 2145, I would like to reiterate my appeal of > CFJ 1682 in the hopes of garnering more support. I still find fault > in the logic of the Judge's arguments, and it seemed at the time that > the judgement may have been swung by the desire not to have > single-member partnerships, which is no longer at issue.
I neither support nor oppose this attempt. I could see the issue being reasonably argued in either direction, and will allow the Board of Appeals to sort it out from here. Would anyone like to attempt a MMI-type rule governing plurals? > What's more, a reversal of CFJ 1682 would be both useful and supported > by game custom, as evidenced by this announcement (as well as other > similar historical agreements) made by Goethe on April 6, 2005: > >> I agree, as per the rules of agora, to not check out >> more cards from the library before they've been in the >> library 4 hours or more, and if I break this agreement I'll >> transfer the card in question to the first person who >> complains. It could be argued that this agreement implicitly included the other players. Still, I do see your point.
