|Daniel Lepage on 20 Jul 2003 16:18:01 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [spoon-discuss] "effects related to proposal failure"|
On Saturday, July 19, 2003, at 05:17 PM, SkArcher wrote:
19/07/2003 21:50:03, "Craig" <ragnarok@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.HYour 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.
It's not only an unorthodox interpretation, it's also a wrong one. Just because something is part of the gamestate doesn't mean that it has the force of rule, or the power to make any change to the gamestate. Simply defining an 'effect of proposal failure' in a part of the gamestate is not enough to make it count as one with respect to the rules, any more
To put it more clearly:r15.H states that "When a proposal fails... other effects specifically related to proposal failure, such as Charm and Entropy adjustments, occur."
Now, for such an effect to exist, it'd have to be defined by the rules.Except, hmmm, there's nothing in the rules defining the effects you're mentioning in your proposal.
Therefore, the effects your proposal describes do not exist.The text itself is part of the gamestate, because the proposal is; but the objects described by the text, namely these 'effects', don't exist in the gamestate unless the proposal passes.
And, of course, said passage would negate the purpose of the failure clause.
You piece of paper is invalid due to r10, where as the failure props are legal for exactly the same reason.
r10? What does that have to do with anything?
I expect to see a CFI from you tho
Technically, since you seem to be in the minority here, *you* ought to be the one CFIing, because if nobody CFIs, we'll assume it doesn't work.
-- Wonko _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss