Araltaln on Tue, 6 Jul 2004 06:31:02 -0500 (CDT) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [Spoon-business] Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: CFI assignments |
SkArcher wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 16:42:10 -0400 (EDT), Zarpint <athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, SkArcher wrote:On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 02:05:18 -0500, Araltaln <smgafkjen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> SkArcher wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 16:39:19 -0400 (EDT), Zarpint >> <athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> I'm honored that you quoted me. With a roll of my dice, I randomly >>> assign >>> -1 to Teucer and -2 to SkArcher. >> >>>> I point out that I am still officially Hiding under a Rock/On Leave as>> of the message from Zarpint. This doesn't change anything, since Rule >> 127 doesn't prevent players who are hiding under a rock/On leave from>> gaining CFIs, it only specifies what happens when they become On leave>> while having a pending CFI >> >> Someone should probably patch that hole. > > There's no hole, come to think of it; Rule 205/7 (Leaves of Absence)> states "A player who is On Leave cannot be selected by any process which> randomly selects a player," so Zarpint can't have randomly selected > SkArcher.So it does. Good. Now Zarpint can select again, although this time I am aneligible candidate.I randomly select SkArcher to judge -2.I rule TRUE on CFI -2, as I find instances in the rules that specifically mandate non-administrators to recognise actions (Ministers, generally)I disagree with the plaintiffs analysis, but the statement is what I am called upon to judge, and that is TRUE
Bah, clever Judge. I'll submit -4 in a while, -3's going to be something entirely different.
--Araltaln _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss