|
Craig Daniel on Sun, 8 Feb 2009 08:45:38 -0700 (MST)
|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation, collated
|
- To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation, collated
- From: Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 10:45:30 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hnUO9GhEGhCSpv2vQVuJD+WEDZxOia2dt0sPEaWMwgE=; b=TAxbAAmHcNAcQ50+M8hZwN2goFtQQHtw/60OamqgCSvUQ9nMYrIGcfKAOejA3xf1v1 SFCy4qrnEkYecS6hk+fMhHKNCLQQwDoxqHN53hgI4zZOy/SQf2gY7YiaCiaiYuSpuGT1 8q+2iLeBPHQxgEDJ9zX0ZzkUGmU8Yq8D5AQCc=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=BQssakljEYKAVf37mImBn3T7tDhXtE7ftL9xaBlA40xWOom6WazHDt5cDwVE4BeYeJ H3Xsqy7BxTXohnkOEVSDOpAf7OdxntfSMsu5v/zuvPKFdXqfRtJILFJXGGiWpDgmQRr1 MRh8Wh+W/WuzMcR92JUshBzCr2qLNrJjL+qNA=
- In-reply-to: <784a579e0902070638v248601bud17bac6c49aab298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <66008.77684.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <55b258c20902070510n780acf35nd3e1ef45bcb798c4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <784a579e0902070638v248601bud17bac6c49aab298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Elliott Hird
<penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2009/2/7 Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> I submit a Consultation:
>>
>> {Question: Did the above create a Consultation?
>> Unbeliever: Marr596
>> Reasoning: it certainly tried to, but I believe it to have been
>> invalid due to illegally specifying multiple unbelievers. Note that e
>> submitted a perfectly valid Consultation with the same text and no
>> Unbeliever already, so if it doesn't exist its nonexistence doesn't
>> stop there from being one with the same text.}
>
> Arguments: He's quoted game actions with "" and '' before and we ignored
> them, so I don't think this should be an exception.
This wasn't a quoted game action, it was a new posting of a game
action not previously posted (as eir previous consultation on the
matter had no Unbeliever and this one tried to have several.)
- teucer
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss