On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > I CFJ on the statement "A non-player who is a party to a contest is a > contestant in that contest."
I'd argue for TRUE, although it may be technically IRRELEVANT; both R2234 (directly) and R2199 (indirectly, because you can't award points to a non-player) base their effects on the number of players who are contestants. I'd argue that the ordinary language definition would include all parties who aren't the contestmaster, and R2234's "players who were contestants" might imply that there could be contestants who aren't players.
