On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 14:54, comex <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > the > > announcement would still cause "all those persons" specified in the > > proposal (not just those listed in the win announcement) to win. > > I support coppro's appeal, as the judge hasn't fully explained why, > out of two competing sets of persons, both of which are required to be > present by the rules-- the one in the win announcement, and the one in > the proposal-- the latter is used as the referent of "all those > persons". For example, consider the following hypothetical rule text: > > Upon an announcement that a proposal awarding a win to one or > more persons has been adopted, all those persons satisfy the > Winning Condition of Legislation. > > This is the same as R2188, but with "a win announcement" changed to > "an announcement". Clearly, under this version, there is the > potential for anyone to win the game by falsely claiming a proposal > awarding em a win has been adopted-- there is no actual proposal to > provide a set of "all those persons", but the text is only concerned > with announcement. > > Why does adding the requirement that the announcement is correct > change the referent? >
I support and appeal this case.
