Re: [s-d] [s-b] $wgLogo

[bd <nomic@xxxxxxx>]

shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> But I disagreed about the interpretation of the rules *about*
>> Proposals, Game Objects, etc.
> 
> Well, then perhaps your RFJ should have been about that then.  It was
> about a proposal.  Sorry.  "The proposal titled..."

It's still a statement about the rules, since all game objects arise 
from the rules. I would argue that it's not strictly necessary to talk 
about the rules directly, as long as useful precedent can be made.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss