Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

<Lurk Mode off again.>

Some thoughts on this issue to both Jon and Ewan:

First, several statements have been made that point to Jon being non-
impartial. I think this is perhaps an incorrect assessment of the
situation. An example: I play game one and get ruling X from the
Umpire. I play game two. A similar situation comes up and I ask the
umpire the same question. This time however, my opponent says to go
and ask the rules writer. The umpire does indeed go and ask the rules
writer and finds that the ruling should in fact be Y not X. This
creates a major continuity issue for the players. Now if game two
includes the rules writer I'm sure that you can see where feelings of
non-impartiality could be generated. This is not the case but it is
what it appears to be.

I for one don't think Jon acted in a non impartial way. I think he
was frustrated by what is an incorrect interpretation of the rules due
to a poorly written section of the rules. I also think that being
there through the entire episode gives me a slightly better
understanding of the situation. (Sorry Ewan, but it was my game after
all)

This leads right in to my second observation:
We have the rules writer right there to make rulings. Why doesn't the
rules writer become the umpire? I know Scot tries to get everything
right and make everything jive with what you intend Jon, but the fact
remains that he is not you. These issues would NEVER come up again if
you were to be the umpire. Your rulings would always be of your
intent. They would occur the first game the question was presented.
There would be continuity for the players throughout the length of the
tournament. And your eratta would exactly reflect your rulings. You
made them after all.

The only drawbacks as I see them for this situation would be that we
the player base would lose Scot as an umpire. (Though scot may not
think this is a drawback!) Jon would not be able to play in the teams
and NICT as often. (Excedpting odd number of players and the like)
And it would add to your already large responsibility load.

As a player I think that the positives of you being the ump for the
Big-2 far out weigh the negatives. (But then all the negatives don't
affect me.)

My .02 in this heated discussion...

Ambrose
<Lurk on>

[joncleaves]

Ok, Terry. And that is the method we use. Scott gets to say and my intent does
not matter. and that is the way it will be - especially given that is what the
players seem to want. The only thing I might do is continue to canvass playes
to make sure that is what the whole playership wants, not just folks like us who
post here. I appreciate you taking the time to pass along your preference and
it is important to us.

I think, though, that none of the fixes I posted earlier have been voided by
this view, so we will go with those in any case to try and make as consistent a
game as we can.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Dix <notalent@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:10:38 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Time for gripes and complaints to Jon and Scott




Greetings Jon,
The difference is the perception of partiality. When you are a player in a
tournament you have to take off the author hat for the duration of your
parcipitation. I understand that you want the game played to your intent. When
you involved in the outcome
you must trust the ref and his decission. For you to offer your intent gives
the perception of partiality. If a rule is writen in such a way as to be
different from your intent it is unfair for you to effectively rewrite the rule
ingame. If you were there and were not playing in that competetion (say this had
occured in the 15mm tourney) you could offer your intent, but that ruling only
works because you no dog in the fight. I would still say that you shouldn't go
with your intent until you get a chance to actualy post a change someplace.

TD
-- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> <<As Phil used to state: players are entitled to an impartial umpire. not
> an infallible one. It's like sport: even if the video *proves* that
> you're not out, too bad - the umpire said that you were. Against the
> intent for a strike to be called (see, I can use US analogies!) when the
> pitch is outside the zone? Sure. So?>>
>
> I would agree. An umpire judging for the players whether or not a certain
unit is behind the flank or upslope or in the woods is making an impartial
judgment call on the game situation - as in a ball in or out of a strike zone.
>
> That, to me, is different than an umpire reading a rule in the book and saying
that his reading is X when X is both counter to the intent of the rule and, in
this case, a mechanics-breaker.







Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A quick note here...

We (Tim and I) Thought that's actually how things were supposed to
be played. It didn't come from a place where we thought we were
breaking the rules and getting away with it. (The implication I
find slightly insulting. I don't ever play that way. <To be read
as being said in a light tone>) We honestly thought that's how
things worked and to our eyes seemed historically accurate. (With
out the benefit of research mind you).

Ambrose



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> ok, we've gotten closer - and I think we can dispense with the
offline as they now parallel..lol
>
> << Even if the rule (through divine intervention, for all I care)
said
> "troops who are camel-mounted get a +10 to both shooting and hand-
to-hand
> random factors" - something that we would all actually agree was a
> mechanics-breaker, as opposed to the current fracas where that is
*not*
> the case - then the umpire upon having this pointed out should
rule that
> that is, indeed, what happens. And if Tim (or I) were the only
person to
> have realised this, and brought the appropriate army, well, then,
we get
> to win the tournament. End of story. Try harder next time.>>
>
> Ok, the above makes clear to me why we aren't in agreement. To
you, it is better to play the game broken for an event than to
possibly let the rules author have what you perceive may be undue
influence. To me, it is important to have the game played correctly
and not permit game-breakers into the mechanics. To you, a player
finds a rules edge - even if he suspects it is an error - and better
to not bring it up in advance, but instead base your victory plan on
it in the hopes it will go undiscovered or ruled your way by the
umpire. Such a win would be as valid to you as one
earned 'normally'.
>
> I got it. I see perfectly why we have been talking past each
other.
>
> What I would like other interested parties to do is to let me and
Scott know - either here or offline if that makes you more
comfortable - what your thoughts are on this. I'll collect them
while he's in Italy and we'll take them into account when we discuss
it upon his return.
>
> Thanks for bearing with us.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

Ambrose, you are one hell of a guy. That was a great mail and you have raised
some excellent issues and made some very cogent observations. One I'd like to
address straight away:

<<We have the rules writer right there to make rulings. Why doesn't the
rules writer become the umpire? I know Scot tries to get everything
right and make everything jive with what you intend Jon, but the fact
remains that he is not you. These issues would NEVER come up again if
you were to be the umpire. Your rulings would always be of your
intent. They would occur the first game the question was presented.
There would be continuity for the players throughout the length of the
tournament. And your eratta would exactly reflect your rulings. You
made them after all.>>

Yes, I know....lol I am very well aware - as are many others - that the best
situation from a consistency standpoint would be for me to ump. And don't think
I haven't agonized over that plenty. I ump often here in KC and out in Denver.
And I do think that someday I will be the umpire for Warrior for NASAMW. But,
on the other hand, I got into this whole shebang because I love the game engine.
One of my going-in positions was that I still got to play. Every time I think
maybe it is time for me to retire and go over to umping one of two things happen
- I remember how much I'd like to win the NICT or someone comes up to me and
says 'hey, I am really glad you actually play this game in competition,
otherwise we'd never get some things fixed that need fixing.'

Your statements above are all absolutely correct. I just have trouble with the
thought of giving up on playing a game I love so dearly. Of the literally
hundreds I own and the dozens I play competitively, this is still el supremo.
It's why I do what I do with FHE. It's the motivation behind the dozens of
hours a week I crush in to get Warrior stuff done.

I'll just go agonize some more now, thank you... But you certainly are
correct in your observation - if I were to ump for NASAMW, this would all be a
major non-issue....

Thanks
Jon





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

Ambrose, I was not accusing you guys of anything. I know you thought you had it
right. My comments about checking stuff with Scott and/or me in advance were
about the future. My comments you see below were a reaction to a theoretical
situation Ewan posed.

No offense meant or implied. You guys played a great game. I'm the one who
didn't behave as he should.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: wacoddignton <nidboy@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:30:49 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Time for gripes and complaints to Jon and Scott




A quick note here...

We (Tim and I) Thought that's actually how things were supposed to
be played. It didn't come from a place where we thought we were
breaking the rules and getting away with it. (The implication I
find slightly insulting. I don't ever play that way. <To be read
as being said in a light tone>) We honestly thought that's how
things worked and to our eyes seemed historically accurate. (With
out the benefit of research mind you).

Ambrose



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> ok, we've gotten closer - and I think we can dispense with the
offline as they now parallel..lol
>
> << Even if the rule (through divine intervention, for all I care)
said
> "troops who are camel-mounted get a +10 to both shooting and hand-
to-hand
> random factors" - something that we would all actually agree was a
> mechanics-breaker, as opposed to the current fracas where that is
*not*
> the case - then the umpire upon having this pointed out should
rule that
> that is, indeed, what happens. And if Tim (or I) were the only
person to
> have realised this, and brought the appropriate army, well, then,
we get
> to win the tournament. End of story. Try harder next time.>>
>
> Ok, the above makes clear to me why we aren't in agreement. To
you, it is better to play the game broken for an event than to
possibly let the rules author have what you perceive may be undue
influence. To me, it is important to have the game played correctly
and not permit game-breakers into the mechanics. To you, a player
finds a rules edge - even if he suspects it is an error - and better
to not bring it up in advance, but instead base your victory plan on
it in the hopes it will go undiscovered or ruled your way by the
umpire. Such a win would be as valid to you as one
earned 'normally'.
>
> I got it. I see perfectly why we have been talking past each
other.
>
> What I would like other interested parties to do is to let me and
Scott know - either here or offline if that makes you more
comfortable - what your thoughts are on this. I'll collect them
while he's in Italy and we'll take them into account when we discuss
it upon his return.
>
> Thanks for bearing with us.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Ambrose,

Not a bad Idea but. . . the fact is that Jon likes to play. He's a gaming
fool and to take that away from him would really not be cool. If there were some
other way to do this where he and Scott have telepathic powers. . .

Wonder Twin Powers. . .
Activate!

kw

wacoddignton <nidboy@...> wrote:

<Lurk Mode off again.>

Some thoughts on this issue to both Jon and Ewan:

First, several statements have been made that point to Jon being non-
impartial. I think this is perhaps an incorrect assessment of the
situation. An example: I play game one and get ruling X from the
Umpire. I play game two. A similar situation comes up and I ask the
umpire the same question. This time however, my opponent says to go
and ask the rules writer. The umpire does indeed go and ask the rules
writer and finds that the ruling should in fact be Y not X. This
creates a major continuity issue for the players. Now if game two
includes the rules writer I'm sure that you can see where feelings of
non-impartiality could be generated. This is not the case but it is
what it appears to be.

I for one don't think Jon acted in a non impartial way. I think he
was frustrated by what is an incorrect interpretation of the rules due
to a poorly written section of the rules. I also think that being
there through the entire episode gives me a slightly better
understanding of the situation. (Sorry Ewan, but it was my game after
all)

This leads right in to my second observation:
We have the rules writer right there to make rulings. Why doesn't the
rules writer become the umpire? I know Scot tries to get everything
right and make everything jive with what you intend Jon, but the fact
remains that he is not you. These issues would NEVER come up again if
you were to be the umpire. Your rulings would always be of your
intent. They would occur the first game the question was presented.
There would be continuity for the players throughout the length of the
tournament. And your eratta would exactly reflect your rulings. You
made them after all.

The only drawbacks as I see them for this situation would be that we
the player base would lose Scot as an umpire. (Though scot may not
think this is a drawback!) Jon would not be able to play in the teams
and NICT as often. (Excedpting odd number of players and the like)
And it would add to your already large responsibility load.

As a player I think that the positives of you being the ump for the
Big-2 far out weigh the negatives. (But then all the negatives don't
affect me.)

My .02 in this heated discussion...

Ambrose
<Lurk on>






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The focus here is the NICT and the Teams. Not the other tournaments
so Jon would still get to be be a "gaming fool"

But I for one am all for the Psychic powers. Solves the problem
nicely

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Ambrose,
>
> Not a bad Idea but. . . the fact is that Jon likes to play.
He's a gaming fool and to take that away from him would really not
be cool. If there were some other way to do this where he and Scott
have telepathic powers. . .
>
> Wonder
Twin Powers. . . Activate!
>
> kw
>
> wacoddignton <nidboy@v...> wrote:
>
> <Lurk Mode off again.>
>
> Some thoughts on this issue to both Jon and Ewan:
>
> First, several statements have been made that point to Jon being
non-
> impartial. I think this is perhaps an incorrect assessment of the
> situation. An example: I play game one and get ruling X from the
> Umpire. I play game two. A similar situation comes up and I ask
the
> umpire the same question. This time however, my opponent says to
go
> and ask the rules writer. The umpire does indeed go and ask the
rules
> writer and finds that the ruling should in fact be Y not X. This
> creates a major continuity issue for the players. Now if game two
> includes the rules writer I'm sure that you can see where feelings
of
> non-impartiality could be generated. This is not the case but it
is
> what it appears to be.
>
> I for one don't think Jon acted in a non impartial way. I think
he
> was frustrated by what is an incorrect interpretation of the rules
due
> to a poorly written section of the rules. I also think that being
> there through the entire episode gives me a slightly better
> understanding of the situation. (Sorry Ewan, but it was my game
after
> all)
>
> This leads right in to my second observation:
> We have the rules writer right there to make rulings. Why doesn't
the
> rules writer become the umpire? I know Scot tries to get
everything
> right and make everything jive with what you intend Jon, but the
fact
> remains that he is not you. These issues would NEVER come up
again if
> you were to be the umpire. Your rulings would always be of your
> intent. They would occur the first game the question was
presented.
> There would be continuity for the players throughout the length of
the
> tournament. And your eratta would exactly reflect your rulings.
You
> made them after all.
>
> The only drawbacks as I see them for this situation would be that
we
> the player base would lose Scot as an umpire. (Though scot may
not
> think this is a drawback!) Jon would not be able to play in the
teams
> and NICT as often. (Excedpting odd number of players and the
like)
> And it would add to your already large responsibility load.
>
> As a player I think that the positives of you being the ump for
the
> Big-2 far out weigh the negatives. (But then all the negatives
don't
> affect me.)
>
> My .02 in this heated discussion...
>
> Ambrose
> <Lurk on>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Make Yahoo! your home page
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

<<In a message dated 4/14/2005 07:31:27 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

To me, there is nothing wrong with the comments like "we'll have to
change that in the next clarification" or some such - and certanly
everything right to do so if you see a problem with the way the
rules are written. That is your job as rules author.

However, Ewan is absolutely correct that during the event if you are
going to play you surrender all your your authority to the umpire
and he is required to rule on the rules _as written_ and your
opinion or intent matters not a smidge more than anyone else's.>>


Ok. I withdraw my concerns on that topic. Whatever axes we move on to make
things better will not include my intent being part of any umpire decision.

I will just add a couple of requests.

1. I am here to go with what the player's want. I am a Warrior fanatic,
but I am not a paying customer - you guys get to say. But this also means that
you buy into having a tourney being played under conditions directly
contrary to something you heard me say or had clarified. Its the price of
doing
business this way. The players seem willing to accept that and I am cool with
that. But I would prefer my inbox did not fill with complaints about it after
the fact. Send me what you thought got 'ruled wrong' and I will clarify it.
But bitching will be ignored - we all just bought into that risk.

2. Please send me and Scott any rules issues you think might come up with
an army you are intending to play in advance. Especially in advance of a
major event. I can't tell you how much that has helped in the past and would
have helped this past weekend.

Thanks. I think this part of the issue is closed. See my fixing
disconnects mail of yesterday for the rest of the plan.

Jon








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Derek Downs]

Jon

What do you do for a living? I am mainly interested because of the shear
number of emails and time you spend on the forum. Also is there an opening?

Derek


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Derek Downs]

I nominate Ewan as list checker. That way he can't play. :)

Derek


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John Murphy]

I'm with Ewan on this 100% Jon.

To me, there is nothing wrong with the comments like "we'll have to
change that in the next clarification" or some such - and certanly
everything right to do so if you see a problem with the way the
rules are written. That is your job as rules author.

However, Ewan is absolutely correct that during the event if you are
going to play you surrender all your your authority to the umpire
and he is required to rule on the rules _as written_ and your
opinion or intent matters not a smidge more than anyone else's.

To do otherwise would likely make Warrior the only rules set ever to
be handled in such a manner and would make the presence of an umpire
absolutely meaningless.

Now, if you desire to take over umpiring duties then that is another
story. Personally I have nothing against a playing umpire as long
as, once again, they rule on the rules as written and not by their
own _unstated_ intent which nobody else has access to prior to the
event.

Without any disrespect, this is not like if we were in the military
under your command and expected to attempt to discern your intent,
which is in fact almost what is implied by that usage. We are using
your product. We are the customers who spent our money on it.

I have to run before the horse vet gets to the house so this is not
as respectfully, clearly or eloquently stated as I would like but
that is the gist, and Ewan says it much better.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> What I would like other interested parties to do is to let me and
Scott know - either here or offline if that makes you more
comfortable - what your thoughts are on this. I'll collect them
while he's in Italy and we'll take them into account when we discuss
it upon his return.

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> 1. I am here to go with what the player's want. I am a Warrior fanatic,
> but I am not a paying customer - you guys get to say. But this also means
that
> you buy into having a tourney being played under conditions directly
> contrary to something you heard me say or had clarified. Its the price of
doing
> business this way. The players seem willing to accept that and I am cool
with
> that. But I would prefer my inbox did not fill with complaints about it
after
> the fact. Send me what you thought got 'ruled wrong' and I will clarify it.

This already happens (i.e. is the status quo). Having Scott pipe up when
you say stuff that is directly contrary to his understanding - e.g. that
charge path wheel stuff - would help, too, of course. And he has too much
free time as it is .

> 2. Please send me and Scott any rules issues you think might come up with
> an army you are intending to play in advance. Especially in advance of a
> major event. I can't tell you how much that has helped in the past and would
> have helped this past weekend.

To Scott - maybe. I've done so in the past (e.g. scythed chariots). I
some cases, though, I can imagine a situation where the rules clearly say
'A' and I am reasonably sure that Scott will feel forced to rule that way
as long as he's not warned in advance and has the chance to tell me otherwise.

To you, if you're playing: no chance. Would I have wanted you - and only
you - to have had a chance to work out how to combat camel obstacles
before you saw them? Naah. Sorry.

Evil Ewan

p.s. John - thanks for the note of support. Ditto to Terry.

[joncleaves]

<< To Scott - maybe. I've done so in the past (e.g. scythed chariots). I
some cases, though, I can imagine a situation where the rules clearly say
'A' and I am reasonably sure that Scott will feel forced to rule that way
as long as he's not warned in advance and has the chance to tell me otherwise.>>

You may send all the rules issues just to Scott that you like.

For everyone else, you might as well send them to me or both of us.... ;)

I think it is terrible that you live in a world where people - fellow gamers in
this case - are presumed liars and cheats before cause is shown. I do not and I
will not act that way. I don't care what tournament bridge directors do. I
will go on presuming my fellow players act with integrity until they show
otherwise.

Oh, and the new 14.0 will require a player to declare in advance what list rules
and strategems his army can employ/possess. This will give the opponent the
chance to look into how they work before the game starts.

I am doing all in my power not to say how I react to the following passage and
will just stick to the facts as best I can.

<<To you, if you're playing: no chance. Would I have wanted you - and only
you - to have had a chance to work out how to combat camel obstacles
before you saw them? Naah. Sorry.>>

I own Arab Conquest. I played with Warrior camel obstacles before anyone else
ever did and have done it longer, partly because the army interests me and
mostly because the rules for this strategem had to be worked out as we were
developing the list. This is true of every strategem in every list. They do
not disorder LHI/LMI/LI because I know - better than anyone could - that if they
did this the army would possess power way beyond what it should historically.
Not to mention that TFs and POs in general would also become game-breaking
powerful. Good loose order foot is *the* method for taking down a defended
obstacle - if it became disordered then there would be no good answer.

Jon





-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:52:34 -0400
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Time for gripes and complaints to Jon and Scott





JonCleaves@... wrote:
> 1. I am here to go with what the player's want. I am a Warrior fanatic,
> but I am not a paying customer - you guys get to say. But this also means
that
> you buy into having a tourney being played under conditions directly
> contrary to something you heard me say or had clarified. Its the price of
doing
> business this way. The players seem willing to accept that and I am cool
with
> that. But I would prefer my inbox did not fill with complaints about it
after
> the fact. Send me what you thought got 'ruled wrong' and I will clarify it.

This already happens (i.e. is the status quo). Having Scott pipe up when
you say stuff that is directly contrary to his understanding - e.g. that
charge path wheel stuff - would help, too, of course. And he has too much
free time as it is .

> 2. Please send me and Scott any rules issues you think might come up with
> an army you are intending to play in advance. Especially in advance of a
> major event. I can't tell you how much that has helped in the past and would

> have helped this past weekend.

To Scott - maybe. I've done so in the past (e.g. scythed chariots). I
some cases, though, I can imagine a situation where the rules clearly say
'A' and I am reasonably sure that Scott will feel forced to rule that way
as long as he's not warned in advance and has the chance to tell me otherwise.

To you, if you're playing: no chance. Would I have wanted you - and only
you - to have had a chance to work out how to combat camel obstacles
before you saw them? Naah. Sorry.

Evil Ewan

p.s. John - thanks for the note of support. Ditto to Terry.




Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ewan McNay]

OK. One last time:

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> I think it is terrible that you live in a world where people - fellow
> gamers in this case - are presumed liars and cheats before cause is
> shown. I do not and I will not act that way. I don't care what
> tournament bridge directors do. I will go on presuming my fellow
> players act with integrity until they show otherwise.

As I've repeatedly said: there is no such world. There is no such
presumption.

Again: THERE IS NO SUCH PRESUMPTION. You are the only one seeing such.

However, acting in the manners I have suggested - and, thankfully, that
others have supported - avoids any possibility of there being problems
or suspicions of such. Just like rolling dice in the open rather than
under a box and having them visible only to the rolling player.

[On a different note: if you are assuming, as your post suggests, that
Scott would show you private emails, despite explicit requests not to do
so - well, (i) I'd be very surprised, and (ii) that would simply result in
there being no such emails. Gee, that's helpful. My *guess* is that you
are not assuming such, but you might avoid the implication.]

> I am doing all in my power not to say how I react to the following
> passage and will just stick to the facts as best I can.
>
> <<To you, if you're playing: no chance. Would I have wanted you - and
> only you - to have had a chance to work out how to combat camel
> obstacles before you saw them? Naah. Sorry.>>
>
> I own Arab Conquest. I played with Warrior camel obstacles before
> anyone else ever did and have done it longer, partly because the army
<snip>

So?

Good for you: you are in an excellent situation to not worry about the
camels (or whatever). And now you can be so without the player taking
them having to have the slightest worry that this is so because of some
knowledge gained through prior information, rather than because of
preparation and skill. Everyone gains. The situation where you prove to
be adept at facing said obstacles, and are known to have had advance
warning of such, is just a bad thing. Your personal integrity - as I
said, one last time - is **irrelevant**. Just as it would be if it were
me, or Scott, or **anyone**.

UK comps have a list-checker, who sees all lists beforehand and checks
them for legality. I think that's a wonderful idea. Is that person
allowed to play in the comp? Hell, no.

Jeez.

E

[Ewan McNay]

He and I are actually two of Scott's multiple personalities. That's
why Scott has so little time for the forum himself...

darnd022263@... wrote:

> Jon
>
> What do you do for a living? I am mainly interested because of the shear
> number of emails and time you spend on the forum. Also is there an opening?
>
> Derek
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>