On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
This CFJ may hinge on an adequate
specification of clearly specify.
Yes. I think clearly specify is a stronger requirement than
specify.
-zefram
After further review, I think comex did not
On Dec 23, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
R208 takes precedence over R955.
This doesn't seem relevant.
I started to go somewhere else, but never actually arrived there. I
was anticipating an issue of balancing the automatic outcome
selection in R955 vs. the
On Dec 24, 2007, at 12:56 AM, Nick Vanderweit wrote:
I cause WALRUS to spend 2 VCs of each color to cause me to gain 1 VC
of each color.
Because WALRUS does not have any VCs, the loss is waived, per rule
2126.
I spend 1 VC of each color to win the game.
avpx
We do need a patch in
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Given that comex did not meet the requirement (b) for submitting a
criminal CFJ, I rule FALSE.
That matches my logic. You could perhaps do with expanding your
discussion of what constitutes clarity.
-zefram
On Monday 24 December 2007 11:36:04 Nick Vanderweit wrote:
I retract my previous (probably invalid) CFJ.
I CFJ on the following statement: It is possible to spend VCs that
one does not own.
avpx
On Dec 24, 2007 12:51 AM, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on this. Spending
Also, it seems to me that, since the difference is so thin, and the
rules do not cover it, it would be valid to count spending as a loss.
avpx
On Dec 24, 2007 11:40 AM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 24 December 2007 11:36:04 Nick Vanderweit wrote:
I retract my previous
OscarMeyr wrote:
b) comex referred to R2149 in eir arguments, and presented no other
rule in the message as provided to this CFJ. A statement in the CFJ
argument is not a clear designation in the CFJ statement proper of the
rule allegedly breached. FAIL
Criminal cases don't have
OscarMeyr wrote:
We do need a patch in 2126, along the lines of replacing:
VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the
color is specified):
With:
VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the
color(s) is/are accurately specified
pikhq wrote:
Common sense dictates that, when you spend something, you have also lost it.
The rules do not say otherwise, so common sense prevails.
This whole case is centered around whether or not to spend is sufficiently
similar to to lose to allow the VC loss to be waived.
I invite the
On Dec 24, 2007 2:21 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pikhq wrote:
Common sense dictates that, when you spend something, you have also lost it.
The rules do not say otherwise, so common sense prevails.
This whole case is centered around whether or not to spend is sufficiently
On Dec 24, 2007 2:42 PM, Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 24, 2007 2:21 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pikhq wrote:
Common sense dictates that, when you spend something, you have also lost
it.
The rules do not say otherwise, so common sense prevails.
This whole
11 matches
Mail list logo
