Re: [s-d] Massive Gamestate Recalculation 2, the Loose Interpretation version

[<bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:56:08 -0800, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> 
> That only breaks things if the rules declare proposals somehow
> ineffective unless properly numbered.  Otherwise, "I vote for
> <number>" still works as an obvious gloss for "I vote for the
> current proposal allegedly numbered <number>".  (Assuming that
> the only possible source of ambiguity is ancient proposals; if
> two current proposals were mistakenly labeled with the same
> number, then yes, "I vote for <that number>" with no other
> context would be ambiguous enough to be ineffective.)

No, that wouldn't work because until recently two game objects could not
have the same identifier.

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