Re: [s-d] [s-b] My votes (finally!)

["Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 14, 2007 11:53 AM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I'm on the fence about whether p177 should be interpreted to create an
> obligation.  Not only could the wording itself be a problem, but
> there's also the issue that proposals take effect at an instant when,
> IMO, all offices are vacant.  There is no Ambassador at the instant
> the proposal's effects happen, so ordering the Ambassador to do
> something might be impossible.
>
> Of course, we could use common sense and make the incoming Ambassador
> take any actions demanded of the office while it was vacant, but it's
> probably best for such a mechanism to be explicit.

I interpret that the job of the Ambassador is separate from the Player
who happens to be the Minister. This tasks the Ambassador in general,
not the specific Player who is currently holding the Ministry. Of
course, the proposal has no way to enforce this.

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