| shadowfirebird on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:34:38 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] $wgLogo (now with more drama!) |
> > Either RFJs must contain statements about the rules, in which case this > > one does not exist, or RFJ 007 previously existed, in which case this > > one is False. > > > eh ? > maybe you are confusing 006 with 007 ? Most people seem to disagree with my reasoning that RFJ's must contain statements about the rules. Note that my ruling on RFJ #6 doesn't add any "guidelines" to the rules to that effect, since I ruled it invalid. And in any case its the statement, plus the judges ruling of true or false, that becomes a "guideline". Not the reasons. _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss