Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
True but not really relevant to my point.
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Of course it favoured 1up, that's the whole point of the "inconsistency". If it inconsistent it clearly implies that some form of action is allowed and some is forbidden when they both fall under the same rule. I'm not saying it's biased in your favour or anything, I'm just saying it favoured you.
|
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. 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.
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?