Originally Posted by Snaqwells
What are you talking about? Flesh tearing? ?????
Re-read Jurassic's, NFR's, your own, and possibly others' responses to my posts in this thread, and compare them to what you have responded with to Nevada. Nevada’s reading of the rules as written is identical to my own. I was not present at the Committee discussions when each of the rules in question were considered and drafted, so I have no knowledge of each of the various Committee members' intents over the years (not that their individual intents matter). All I have to go by is what they chose collectively, as a rules-making body, to write in the books over the years, the culmination of which is the current editions of both. When a current Committee feels intent wasn't accurately stated by a previous Committee, or when they choose to change the intent for their own reasons, they make the change necessary in the language. What is in the book is their best possible expression of their intent—it is as clear as they could make it, and still have it fit together with other rules. That doesn’t mean it is going to be easy for EVERYONE to discern. Some have a more difficult time than others. You all of the sudden switched your position on the substantive questions of the thread, apparently simply because Nevada has now said what I have been saying.
I'll re-state my minor quibble with Nevada: Whereas he sees the rule as counter to the intent we're all discussing, I see it as vague and, quite frankly, open to interpretation.
Which is my point--you refer to it as a minor quibble, now. Nevada uses language like "clearly states," and "directly against the written rule," and "People must understand that POI is not reverting to exactly what was happening in the game when it was stopped." Your quibble is not minor; it is the very essence of what we have been debating. If you disagree, than you and I do not communicate on any level.
Let me ask you again, how would you resume that play if there was an IW?
I believe I answered that one, and supported it with book references. I'm not going to repeat myself. Ask me something specific about my response, and use book references, so we don't spend eternity debating, only to have Nevada step in.
|