RE: [s-d] Re: [auto] Peter votes

["Mark Walsh" <flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On: 12/18/05 7:24:31 AM Peter sent:
> Subject: [s-d] Re: [auto] Peter votes
>
> Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Dec 17, 2005, at 7:53 PM, Peter voted:
> >> Motion 311/0: Uncommonly Good Talismans                : Against
> >
> > Any particular reason? I didn't propose this just to make my other
> > prop work. I really do think that having "Uncommon" as a rarity makes
> > sense, because some things shouldn't be that common but also might not
> > warrant the restrictions associated with being Rare.
>
> How would uncommon be different from common? If there's a distinction
> between them I don't mind having it, but it feels weird that there'd
> be two rarities that behaved identically...
>
I was thinking that 'Uncommon' might be a step of Rarity below Rare.
It could be propped that you can't forge an Uncommon Talisman if you
already have a copy, but it could be permissable to have two copies in
your possession if the second was obtained by some mechanism other
than forging.

Triller



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