Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 46 BALLOT

[Iain Scott <iop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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