Mark Walsh on Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:12:12 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: [s-d] Peter submits p339 - Defendant's argument.

On: 1/16/06 5:30:21 AM Antonio sent:
> Subject: [s-d] Re: [s-b] Peter submits p339 - Defendant's argument.
> Rather than the fact of there being two supers (it's silly to think that 
> if there are two ministers things happen twice) I think that the thing 
> we must look at is the exact wording of the training room ordinances.
> A Player pays one Action Point to see a 2D3 roll that the Super calls.
And that is the pith of the two arguments:
> it can mean either:
> "one AP" -> "one roll" (that the super calls)
That's the Defendants view (By Rule 1-2)
>   or
> "one AP" -> "the super calls a roll" -> and from this we could get to 
> "each super calls a roll"
And that the Plaintiff's by various Rules in Section IV.
> But why should we try to read it that way ?
> 	Antonio
And that's the point. How do the other Players in
the game interpret the rules. The Plaintiff and the
Defendant can't vote on a CFI, but all other Players
can. Eligible Voters should review the Rules for
themselves. The two given views on the matter are
not necessarily the only ones.


spoon-discuss mailing list