|Iain Scott on 31 Jul 2003 16:28:15 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 46 BALLOT|
At 15:22 31/07/03, you wrote:
--- Iain Scott <iop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Proposal 1600/0: What was that again? (Glotmorf) isnt it in > conflict with the > Permisability of the Unprohibited? No, it complements r18, by regulating the otherwise not regulated actions and objects. An interesting question, though, is what is left unregulated after this goes in.
Hmm... perhaps I meant "conflicts with the _spirit_ of r18"?And now I think of it, r393 references the action "change the game state", "but [I think] there is no statement in the rules defining that action". Does that mean that no changes to the game state, even those speciffically allowed by other rules, would be possible?
cheers, Iain _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss