Re: [s-d] [s-b] Nweek 112 ballot

["all players" <bdonlan+nomic@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/27/06, David E. Smith <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > 13    Name-change props
> AGAINST. The last sentence is impossibly ambiguous. The last thing we
> need is a State of Emergency in the first nweek.

There shouldn't be an ambiguity of that magnitude. If one interprets
it in a pedantic way, you could come to one of the following
conclusions:

* 'it' refers to the block to be replaced, and this sentence is an
additional clause in the only action of this prop. In this case the
prop works as intended.
* 'it' refers to something else, and this sentence is an additional
clause in the only action of this prop. In this case the prop works as
intended. In this case, the proposal may have no effect, if this 'it'
fails to exist (if you want to argue for this, specify an it)

If that sentence is an additional action, it either fails to have any
effect, or invalidates the proposal, as it's not a change to game
state, merely a statement which is false.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss