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

["Daniel Peter Lepage" <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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

I vote REFUSED.

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.

-- 
Wonko

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