Craig Daniel on Sun, 8 Feb 2009 08:51:52 -0700 (MST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Loose Interpretation League


On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Elliott Hird
<penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2009/2/7 Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> A vanilla non-aggression pact that happens to call its parties
>> "losers" is bad for the game?
>
> Non-aggression? You mean like forbidding consistency declarations
> just because someone tends to interpret the rules another way?

It doesn't actually forbid them. It says "should not but may", which I
read as intending "should" in the Agoran sense.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss