Daniel Peter Lepage on Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:12:17 -0500 (CDT)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] Re: cfi

> Shoot... did I mis-edit the statement?  Crap.  Anyway, I argue that
> the CFI is still valid and good to have in the gamestate to set up the
> precedent about the  common usages of words and such.  Just seems like
> a good thing to have established.

You mean, the precedent that a sentence need not have verbs? I don't about
that... :P


While I can't agree or disagree with the statement, I think the argument
makes sense, and actually I'd rather see a CFI with the argument as the
statement, something like "When the rules specify a cost for performing an
action, it's assumed that the action can't be performed without paying the
cost unless the rules say otherwise." I think the current CFI system lends
itself better to that sort of general interpretation question rather than
case specific rulings.

And I agree with Peter that since the Minister responsible for such things
didn't recognize the actions, it's DQT's responsibility to CFI it if e
thinks e has a case.


spoon-discuss mailing list