On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 16:08 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > > Since you are Slate A and Slate C, you either can't win the game by
> > > > announcement because Slate B players can as the former, or you can't win
> > > > the game by announcement because there is no mechanism for the latter to
> > > > do so.
> > >
> > > Doesn't the existence of a (Slate A and Slate C) player mess up some of
> > > the conditionals as to whether specific slates can win?
> >
> > Also, does it require "all Slate B" to be able to win by announcement in
> > order to block Slate A from winning? Corona in particular is in Slate B
> > and can't win by announcement due to Blots.
>
> Is there any defined precedent for when "players belonging to a set can X" vs
> "there is a mechanism for players belonging to a set to be able to X" that
> would be relevant here?
I don't think so (could be wrong of course). IMO it comes down to the exact
wording, and whether [any of] or [all of] is implied where I've inserted it:
The Slate A players CAN win the game by announcement on the
Effective Date, unless [any of/all of] the Slate B players
also CAN win the game by announcement on the Effective Date.
