Requesting opinions on RFJ 6004.1

[metaloop]

I feel the statement can be interpreted in either way. Look at the
following:

1. If that player fails to vote for three consecutive turns in
which proposals were up for vote

2. If that player fails to vote for three consecutive turns in
which proposals were up for vote

I feel somehow that in English usage the 1st meaning is more common
than the 2nd one. I could be wrong and I seek opinions on this.

["Looney" Lurie]

In common English usage, you are correct. However, the second
interpretation seems somewhat more in keeping with the spirit of the
game.

This is the nastiest type of RFJ, in which the rules don't give a
definitive answer, but there isn't a paradox either. Basically, make an
arbitrary decision, and if someone doesn't like it, the question can be
put to vote as an appeal.

--- metaloop <pav...@gmail.com> wrote:

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[Physics]

If the first interpretation were true, then the phrase "in which
proposals were up for vote" would modify "three consecutive turns",
ie. the whole duration having proposals instead of each turn
individually needing a proposal. At least that's the way I see it.
Also, interpretation 2 does seem to be what was intended. English is
too ambiguous. Which reminds me of a programming quote:
"(What the world needs (I think) is not (a Lisp (with fewer
parentheses)) but (an English (with more.)))" - Brian Hayes