Daniel Lepage on Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:02:06 -0500 (CDT)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[s-d] Re: [s-b] As promised, a CFI



On Oct 27, 2004, at 11.01 PM, Jake Eakle wrote:

Statement: r1903 did not create any cards.

Plaintiff: Personman

Argument: A card is defined by r1726 as necessarily containing a description of a picture. None of the cards r1903 purported to create contained such a description. Note that while r1726 does state that a card's text box may be blank (though it would be stylistically preferable to list it as such in the prop creating the cards, this is not strictly necessary), it does NOT state that the picture may be similarly omitted from the card description. While there is no rule against describing a blank picture, all card descriptions MUST contain text describing the contents of the picture box. Because r1903
provides no such description, it failed on passing to create any cards
whatsoever, no cards were added to the deck, everyone drew different cards than those currently described by the current hand lists, no sequence was
laid down, and no one recieved any tildex for doing so.

Aw, hell. You're gonna make me redo ALL of last week's draws? That's gonna take a while.

It also decks us quite badly. A few plays were poorly made, in that case - at least one Six Card Hand will have had very little effect due to there not being enough cards in the deck.

If this goes through, it will Take Time to implement.

Y'know, it would be nice if there were some way for a judge to tack 'suggested remedies' onto a CFI, so that the judge here could propose a nice set of gamestate changes that wouldn't require me to redo an nweek's worth of actions.

--
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss