Re: [s-d] Some actions

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

> Only if you could get the phrase "the Administrator" in the rules to
> refer to you could this work, and I think that we've come to consensus
> that if something could refer to a player or to something else, it's
> got to be clear that it's a player or it's understood to be the
> something else.

Peter, I honestly don't understand this bit.  (I agree with all the
rest, FWIW.)  When did we come to a consensus?  Is it in the rules?
Is it in the rules that "coming to a consensus" means anything, even
if we have come to one?

This rather touches on my "legal mode" / "monopoly mode" proposals.
Do things actually have to be in the rules to be part of the game?  If
not, what are the limits?  We need a rule...!
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss