Re: RE: [spoon-discuss] "effects related to proposal failure"

[SkArcher <SkArcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

19/07/2003 21:50:03, "Craig" <ragnarok@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>By that logic, so is Wonko's win for having posted a sentence declaring
>>>victory when a proposal fails.
>
>>I don't remember whether that scam was in an actual proposal.  If it was
>part of a real proposal, then yes, it is legal.
>
>You don't get it. The clause activates when a proposal fails. Or passes. It
>doesn't matter whether it was in a failed proposal, as long as it is
>activated by a failed proposal.
>
>>>Or my win for having a piece of paper on my
>>>desk reading 'Whenever a proposal passes or fails, the rule "No Win For
>You"
>>>is deleted if it exists, and then I win.'
>
>>Nope.  That wasn't in a proposal.  It's only legal if it's a clause in a
>proposal.  Writing it on your arm or on your desk is not a failure
>>clause in a proposal.
>
>Because it was an effect specifically related to failure, it is exactly the
>same as any other such effect that isn't in the rules or anything with any
>in-game force. Neither a failed proposal nor a random post nor a piece of
>paper on my desk has any force within the game, so it doesn't matter where
>it is written. It is both a) specifically related to proposal failure and b)
>completely without force.
>
>So far, Anything, You're the only person I've seen claiming that it matters
>that the clause is in a failed proposal. That's just the vehicle for the
>failure clause, just as effective as the paper on my desk or Wonko's
>message.

No, its not, because the clause in a prop which reads '...if this proposal fails then...' is an 
'...effect specifically related to proposal failure...' as mentioned in r15.H

Your piece of paper has no bearing on this, because there is no clause that says your piece of 
paper has any effect. The failure clause has an effect because r15.H says it does.

you are looking at the arguement from the wrong angle. you see this as being an illegal action, 
when in fact it is a legal action based on an unorthodox interpretation of the ruleset, not simply 
ignoring the rules, which is what your piece of paper does. You piece of paper is invalid due to 
r10, where as the failure props are legal for exactly the same reason.

I expect to see a CFI from you tho


SkArcher


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