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

[Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 17:31 +0000, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2008, at 17:26, Alex Smith wrote:
> 
> > Why? They weren't ZOTted when I submitted them. (They might be ZOTted
> > later, but I didn't submit 5 consultations in the same week which were
> > all ZOTted, they blatantly weren't at the time.)
> 
> I can ignore common English usage too! Bunnies for all!

The interpretation you're arguing for blatantly makes no sense:

At the moment, I'm clearly not in violation of the rules. The
consultations in question aren't ZOTted. If the consulations are all
ZOTted at some later time, ehird argues that that platonically causes me
to be in violation of the rules. That isn't actually what rule 5e39
implies IMO, especially reading "are all ZOTted" as "are later ZOTted"
causes the rule in question to be retroactive. ehird's favoured
interpretation appears to be "Once all 5 are ZOTted, the player becomes
Held in Contempt of Court", which is blatantly not what the rule says;
but in that case, actions by another player platonically cause me to
become in violation of the rules, even though at no point did I break
them. (This doesn't make sense either, pretty clearly; also, rule 5e36
requires players to break the rules, not merely violate them, to be
punished, which is likely a wording bug; deliberately violating the
rules, or maybe even accidentally violating them, can plausibly be
interpreted as breaking them, but being platonically caused to be in
violation by the actions of another player? Not so much.)

-- 
ais523

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