How Would You To Resolve A Dispute With 2+ Interpretations?

[_yeti]

Turcoroxx? Is that you? Was the rule as vague as this post?

[bjd5211]

No clue, you need to tell us the rule.

[Cameron Giles]

If you're the commissioner, then it's up to you no matter how dumb the rule is.

[Ray Finkle]

I’ll bet my next week’s paycheck that this is turcorox’s burner account.

[Orenthal Shames]

Purge everyone. Dissolve the league

[Valhalla]

Clear case. Implement emergency action rule #7.

[Mefisto]

...what's the rule?

[saw061600]

This is absolutely the dumbest post ever on the forum.
You didn't tell us the rule.
You didn't tell us the interpretation.
You didn't tell us how your decision followed the rule; probably because you didn't tell us the rule.

[BlackOmega]

I chose the 4th interpretation as it made the most sense to me

[_yeti]

I’ll bet my next week’s paycheck that this is turcorox’s burner account.

Long vague story: check
Multi option poll: check
Commissioner involved and rule interpretation required: check.
Is a profile that has not commented on threads relating to football players: check.
Profile with only five posts and the other thread he is in he also created and is a commissioner/tanking thread: check.
Other thread he created has multi option poll: check.

Verdict: turcorox is now trolling us from at least two accounts.

[slaughterrt]

I read that post probably 4 times thinking I kept overlooking the critical missing information. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool be two, three, or four times, then shame on me.

[CK_]

A interception was thrown which then started the discussion, therefore the person that started the discussion was already ready for a dispute. That person then proceeds to see another interception so said discussion has now become a dispute but if first interception was not thrown then no dispute would be had. So then you must remove the first interception but then if you remove first interception then you must remove second interception but second interception must not be removed so then you must therefore add back in the first interception to then remove the second interception to then solve the dispute of both interceptions so then you must add back both interceptions and VOILA!

[Triton85]

mind... blown...

[slaughterrt]

A interception was thrown which then started the discussion, therefore the person that started the discussion was already ready for a dispute. That person then proceeds to see another interception so said discussion has now become a dispute but if first interception was not thrown then no dispute would be had. So then you must remove the first interception but then if you remove first interception then you must remove second interception but second interception must not be removed so then you must therefore add back in the first interception to then remove the second interception to then solve the dispute of both interceptions so then you must add back both interceptions and VOILA!

[FantasyFreak]

I’ll bet my next week’s paycheck that this is turcorox’s burner account.

Long vague story: check
Multi option poll: check
Commissioner involved and rule interpretation required: check.
Is a profile that has not commented on threads relating to football players: check.
Profile with only five posts and the other thread he is in he also created and is a commissioner/tanking thread: check.
Other thread he created has multi option poll: check.

Verdict: turcorox is now trolling us from at least two accounts.

LOL.