Re: [s-b] [s-d] Yes.

Roger Hicks on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:11:22 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-b] [s-d] Yes.

To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [s-b] [s-d] Yes.
From: "Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:11:17 -0700
In-reply-to: <cf0c2a990712311002x1789ebe1i3f65794cc7f09d20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200712311049.44989.josiahw@xxxxxxxxx> <6d741b990712310955m64377a5cwfe823162a82fd908@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200712311058.30028.josiahw@xxxxxxxxx> <cf0c2a990712311002x1789ebe1i3f65794cc7f09d20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Dec 31, 2007 11:02 AM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> No it won't.  If a Consultation is found to be Inconsistent, it's
> assigned to another Priest and the existing Answer and Oracularity are
> thrown out.
>
In addition, consultations no longer guide future play. Therefore even
if this was answered false, we could all still just ignore it. Only
Oracularities have any effect on future gameplay.

Oh, and I claim Consultation 71 to be Inconsistent with established doctrine.

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

References:
- [s-b] Yes.
  - From: Josiah Worcester
- Re: [s-b] Yes.
  - From: Mike McGann
- Re: [s-b] [s-d] Yes.
  - From: Geoffrey Spear

Prev by Date: Re: [s-b] Creating Blueprint
Next by Date: [s-b] Proposal: In the Interest of Tomfoolery
Previous by thread: Re: [s-b] [s-d] Yes.
Next by thread: Re: [s-b] [s-d] Yes.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread