Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mazzelaar
Of course it is, you're talking about a specific situation that occured at a specific time. The statement I made is entirely releant to that specific situation.
|
It's relevant to the situation but not to my point. It's also relevant to the situation that 1up won the round but not relevant to my point which concerns that fact that a particular rule was broken in different ways, one of which was punished and one of which was not.
Quote:
|
I'm not sure I see what you mean by favoured. Yes we, according to the community but not PA team, "bent" the rules last round. No, no-one else tried the same tactic. No, no-one else was punished for doing the same thing. For there to be consistency in the application of the rules there has to be consistency in the action the rule is being applied to.
|
This is not necessarily true. Consistency in the application of the rules merely means that the rule should be applied in all situations in which it is relevant. So if any action is taken which breaks the member limit of alliances then that action is prohibited by the rule. For the rule to be consistent all actions taken which break the member limit are prohibited by the rule. If all actions which break the member limit are not prohibited by the rule it is inconsistent.
Quote:
|
If you're trying to say what constitues the intracacies of the rule itsself then yes, it's massively inconsistent. But thats the rule and not the application at fault. If someone had asked if they could have several small, inactive planets in tag and were permitted then that is consistant.
|
We appear to be talking about different types of consistency. Reference above for clarification.
Quote:
|
1up did ask if it was possible to have 100 out of tag covop planets working for us this round. We were told absolutely not. Is that consistent with the re-openings of this round?
|
No.