|Daniel Lepage on Wed, 3 Nov 2004 23:19:32 -0600 (CST)|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] Work is sucking the lifeforce from me--I mean, more than usual|
On Nov 3, 2004, at 11.05 PM, Jeremy Cook wrote:
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:42:26PM -0500, Daniel Lepage wrote:On Nov 3, 2004, at 10.23 PM, Jeremy Cook wrote:The CFI I was Recalling Shenanigans on was entitled "CFJ on Wonko" andwas on the statement "Wonko did not succeed in laying down eir sequence of Green, Blue, and Indigo more than once."Oh yeah. I'm not a legal Appellate Judge on that, since I'm the Plaintiff. Anyway, what were the reasons?Here was the important reason; there are at least a dozen messages fromvarious players devoted to this, but this was the important part: =======[argument of CFI snipped] No, I was asking: what was the reason you appealed a CFI ruled in your favor?
It wasn't ruled in my favor: --------------- Judge Araltaln's JudgmentI rule TRUE on the cfi. While it is true that there are many many examples of card games where cards which are laid down don't leave the player's possession, or even in some cases the player's hand, there's still one thing they have in common--it's awfully hard to lay cards down which have already been laid down without picking them back up again. Common usage is a necessary evil, and it's certainly applicable in this case. As picking the Cards up is not otherwise allowed for by the Rules, and the act of picking the Cards up would modify the game state, I'm going to have to rule that it can't be done.
--------------- But I don't buy this argument, so I appealed it. -- Wonko "Write a wise saying and your name will live forever" -Anonymous _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss