Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 44 BALLOT

[SkArcher <SkArcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

30/06/2003 18:11:28, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 01:08  PM, SkArcher wrote:
>
>> 30/06/2003 17:59:06, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Proposal 1574/0: Duties (SkArcher)
>>> Yes, but I hope to get rid of the clause requiring all Duties to be in
>>> that rule. That's what keywords are for.
>>
>> I did send a reply about this, but I think it got chewed up by my 
>> server
>>
>> The wording of the rule only requires the duties to be listed there - 
>> it does not say that the duties must have their entire clauses and 
>> effects there, just
>> that a list of them must be kept there. The only reason the Duty Duty 
>> is fully explained is that - well, where else is it going to go?
>>
>> I am aware that keywords are theoretically for this, but frankly i 
>> find that the keywords system isn't greatly implemented and some rules 
>> are missing
>> essential keywords
>
>We have a Ministry of Keywords for this, which I intend to run for as 
>soon as I return from vacation (leaving tomorrow, back on saturday). I 
>haven't done much with keywords yet because I don't want to bother with 
>rules that are about to be repealed anyway.; I'm waiting to see what's 
>left, and I'll be happy to rekey all the survivors.
>
>-- 
>Wonko


Fine, you prop that to the satisfaction of all and i'll gladly modify the duty rule. May i 
suggest that you seperate 'rules that affect duties/the duty rule' from 'rules that 
create/define duties'? That is the problem with keywords, sometimes they are little too 
inclusive for their own good.


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