Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] RainbowWolfe submits p102

[Rainbow Wolfe <rainbowdreamwolf@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/23/05, Sonnet Nazi <jessicooper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hmmm. Yes.
> However, I did not see in this section
> [[Any player who has declared emself to be Unavailable For The Forseeable
> Future may, by posting a message on a public forum, declare emself to be 
> Not
> Unavailable For The Forseeable Future. By taking any game action on a 
> public
> forum, a player who is Unavailable For The Forseeable Future 
> automatically,
> by implication, declares emself to be Not Unavailable For The Forseeable
> Future (or Not Hiding Under A Rock).]]
> any reference as to whether the posting was during the unavailable period.
> Perhaps that should be a bit more explicit? I agree it ought to be 
> implied,
> but there may be rules lawyers in the game who would twist any ambiguity 
> and
> use it for their own evil purposes.



Why would anyone declare themselves Not Unavailable (double neg) if they 
were already Not Available? This paragraph would only be relevant if the 
player was Unavailable, otherwise it becomes useless... at least as I read 
it. I think the double negs I threw in may have confused the issue. I s'pose 
if I was gonna re-edit I'll remove the double negs so it becomes readable.

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