[s-d] Re: [s-b] As promised, a CFI

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Oct 27, 2004, at 11.01 PM, Jake Eakle wrote:

> Statement: r1903 did not create any cards.
>
> Plaintiff: Personman
>
> Argument: A card is defined by r1726 as necessarily containing a 
> description
> of a picture. None of the cards r1903 purported to create contained 
> such a
> description. Note that while r1726 does state that a card's text box 
> may be
> blank (though it would be stylistically preferable to list it as such 
> in the
> prop creating the cards, this is not strictly necessary), it does NOT 
> state
> that the picture may be similarly omitted from the card description. 
> While
> there is no rule against describing a blank picture, all card 
> descriptions
> MUST contain text describing the contents of the picture box. Because 
> r1903
> provides no such description, it failed on passing to create any cards
> whatsoever, no cards were added to the deck, everyone drew different 
> cards
> than those currently described by the current hand lists, no sequence 
> was
> laid down, and no one recieved any tildex for doing so.

Aw, hell. You're gonna make me redo ALL of last week's draws? That's 
gonna take a while.

It also decks us quite badly. A few plays were poorly made, in that 
case - at least one Six Card Hand will have had very little effect due 
to there not being enough cards in the deck.

If this goes through, it will Take Time to implement.

Y'know, it would be nice if there were some way for a judge to tack 
'suggested remedies' onto a CFI, so that the judge here could propose a 
nice set of gamestate changes that wouldn't require me to redo an 
nweek's worth of actions.

--
Wonko

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