Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Player Forfeit Device Cleanup.

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

On Jan 28, 2008 1:27 PM, comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Jan 28, 2008 1:02 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > There was a whole issue around this concerning the Rapier owned by pikhq
> > before he forfeit.
>
> Is there a reason why you're using 'forfeit' instead of 'forfeited'?
> I don't see any special past tense in the dictionary...


Nope. I simply misspoke. Hmm, miswrote.


> Anyway, it seems to me that objects shouldn't be DOOs unless the Rules
> say they're DOOs.  Same with COOs or anything else.  Hmm, how about
> this *proto-*proposal:
>
> {
> Proposal: Assimilation
> Amend Rule 4E2 (Game Objects) by adding the paragraph;
> {
> Given any subclass or special type of object defined by the Rules,
> Game Objects shall by default be considered not to belong to that
> subclass.
> }
> }


Sounds good, but what do you mean to say about the special type of object?

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