Re: [s-d] [s-b] $wgLogo

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

Sorry, Wonko, I really have to disagree with you this time.

> 1) I believe the intent of the RFJ was indeed to question the
> interpretation of the rules.

So do I.  But I can't judge on "intent".  If we start playing by what
we think RFJ's, proposals, and rules intended to say, rather than what
they actually say, I'm not sure that we have a workable game.
Certainly not the game that I thought I was playing.


> 2) Regardless, your definition is incorrect. R2-5 asserts that an RFJ
> must contain a Statement, but does not place any restrictions on what
> that Statement may contain.

"Whenever there is disagreement as to the interpretation of the rules,
any player may submit a request for judgement..."

Therefore, if there is not a disagreement as to the interpretation of
the rules, a player cannot submit an RFJ.  The only way I can judge
what a disagreement is about is by reading the statement.  I don't
have the right to guess or estimate what the disagreement is about
based on the discussion forum, especially since it isn't part of the
game.


> While the rule does note that RFJs can
> only be issued when there is disagreement about the interpretation of
> the rules, it does not require that such RFJs pertain to this
> disagreement.

So if I have a disagreement about the rules I can post an RFJ on a
completely different subject?   In which case I suggest that I would
have grounds to rule "invalid" because the statement is irrelevant.


For the record, folks, I wasn't trying to be cute; or run a ploy; or
being vindictive.  I honestly looked at the rules and gave it my best
shot.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss