comex on Tue, 26 May 2009 08:36:55 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] [CotC] CFJ 5 assigned to Judge 0x44

yeah, incorrect judgements don't affect the gamestate. The ruleset can't be ratified but feel free to proprose ratifying it (retroactively) if you want to get on with the game. Personally I like 'Bn' though and think it's a shame to remove it in favor of more awkward grammar.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 26, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 08:31 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 07:33, comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I intend to appeal this with two support. Rule 105 explicitly disallows
simultaneous rule changes.  If those specified by the proprosal are
necessarily simultaneous, they cannot occur at all.

comex's reasoning is sound, but I specifically do not support the
appeal of this case. It seems to me it is better for the good of the
game to allow the judgment to stand as it allows us to get on with it.

Perhaps a ruleset ratification could paper over this issue?

We'll have to make CFJs self-ratifying before we use them to patch
gamestate bugs. They aren't quite the same as Consultations...


spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss mailing list