Paul VanKoughnett on Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:40:42 -0700 (MST)


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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] The current gamestates, as I understand them


I've been lurking on this list for a while, and will probably actually
join the game since you've started a new one.  But for now I'm just
dropping in to say: in what way did the proposals state an explicit
intention to modify only that document?  Presumably, they (implicitly)
intended to modify two documents -- the two extant rulesets -- and one
of those intentions automatically failed.

--Paul

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Eric Stucky <turiski.nomic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Haha, I think I like the new proposal more than "re-move law 4". Yes.
>
> > No outstanding proposals, since quotation marks aren't curly brackets.
> Yeah, and while law 9 doesn't make it illegal, it probably makes it pretty useless.
>
> [ -Turiski ]
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss