[s-d] RFJ 0008 judgement

["Iain Scott" <iopgod@xxxxxxxxx>]

>{{This is RFJ 007}}
>
>reasoning: the RFJ submitted by Optional "Should a player be called
>upon..." contained three statements, and was therefore not a real RFJ.

Hmm...

Well, I would really like to rule this invalid, but the statement
seems to me to be clear, unambiguous and relevent to the game and the
current state of the game, so I had better:

ACCEPT the RFJ.

Rule 1-5 states that the Administrator is responsible for "ensuring
that players understand the current state of the game". Im going to
assume the Administrator is correct at the present time. Therefore, as
I understand this RFJ to be RFJ 008,  I hence rule this RFJ to be
FALSE.

[[Incidentally, if I was able to judge the reasoning, and I agree with
Optional that im not, I would still Rule False: I think that though
RFJ6 had three clauses it still only had one statement.]]

-- 
cheers,
Iain
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss