Tyler on Mon, 5 Jan 2009 04:44:42 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-b] [s-d] Ehirds macks...

I also believe it to be invalid. If it is not, I ZOT it anyhow for being
ambiguously valid.

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> More relevantly, we're not allowed to interpret things thus. I submit
>> a Consultation:
>> {Question: Did Nobody violate the rules by illegally interpreting a
>> rule as referring to eir name?
>> Unbeliever: Nobody
>> Arguments: Eir statement "Come to me, pretty shiny macks..." clearly
>> indicates a belief that e would own any unowned ownable game objects.}
> Invalid consultation, the Unbeliever must be a Player.
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

spoon-business mailing list