Re: [s-d] [s-b] Assigning Consultation

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 10, 2008 5:58 PM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think it was unambiguously true that no Player acquired the Device,
> since there was no Default Owner specified and no reason to favor any
> one Player over the others as the Owner.  The reasoning behind an
> implicit non-Player DOO existing might be a bit shaky, but the rules
> don't say that only Players are DOO's, and they clearly state that a
> device must be owned by some DOO.


You're right. What I was referring to was the reasoning about implicit
creation of blueprints and DOOs, not the NO itself which I am 100% behind.

My Oracularity probably should have included a penalty for everyone
> who read that proposal and didn't notice that it was creating a Device
> until after it passed.  That sort of collective lack of critical
> proposal reading can be dangerous when proposals overhaul more
> critical bits of the game....


All i can say is INDEED.

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