Re: [s-d] Public statement about the recent approval scam

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM, comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Elliott Hird
> <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I don't deny that 5E10 is an awkward heap of trivia, BTW, but I think we
>> should leave cleaning it up to the proposal process incrementally to avoid
>> breaking things. And because it's not a crisis (not that any of the "crises"
>> we're in Emergency for really are, but oh well.)
>
> Things are already broken about as much as possible tbh, as Rule 5E10
> allows anyone to perform any game action-- I haven't seen any
> arguments against this, though feel free to supply one.  (C Nomic
> doesn't count because that scam failed for other reasons, as
> mentioned.)  If this is indeed the case, the gamestate is totally
> undefined.

We were talking about this part on IRC last night. It would appear
that 5E10 defers to 5E11, because it has a clause in the relevant
sentence where it says "Game Actions occur upon reaching the
appropriate fora, in the order they arrived, **unless a rule states
otherwise.**"
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss