Re: [s-d] [s-b] Multiple names, part two.

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:41 AM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:49:28 -0400
>> From: teucer@xxxxxxxxx
>> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [s-b] [s-d]  Multiple names, part two.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:43 AM, M P Darke <darkemalcolm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > In that case I make it 11 Kicks in the Ass. I'll take 5.
>>
>> NttPF, and you have to tell us who you're kicking anyhow. Like this:
>>
>> For each of the following names, I kick all players who have that name
>> and are not me in the ass: {{Marr965}}, {{compsciguy}}, {{JamesB}},
>> {{Murphy}}, {{Gitchel, The One and Only Respected One}}. In all cases,
>> the kicks are for failing to obey the requirements of Rule 2.
>>
>> [[Guys, you had three ndays to come up with unique names. Only 0x44,
>> formerly Rule --9999, chose to do so. (I'm not kicking players who
>> didn't post in the meantime, since kicking people for not paying
>> attention seems unsporting.) Note that the validity of these kicks can
>> only be determined pending 0x44's judgement on CFI 123A1.]]
>>
>
>
> Kicks cannot be given in response to inaction: "Whenever a player performs an action that is on the List of Generally Abhorred
> Stuff in a public forum, any player may respond in a public forum to the forum message containing that action, indicating that e is
> giving that player a Kick in the Ass, and the reason why, specifying the name of the player performing the action that is on the
> LOGAS."
>
> I did fail to perform an action which the rules say I must do but I did not do it to the Public Forum. In any case, I'm not
> recognizing these.

The action of not doing things you are required to do is on the LOGAS.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss