Re: [s-d] Someone's gotta do it

["Mark Walsh" <flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/28/07 3:03:59 PM Optional sent:
> Subject: Re: [s-d] Someone's gotta do it
>
> If we all agree to interpret the rules in a given way, then that's
> what the rules say...
>
There's the rub. It's not likely that said unanimity will occur.

All Players agreed to be governed by the Rules when
requesting to join the Game. To cavalierly flout the text 
of a Rule by assuming a stance of "this is what we think
a Rule REALLY means" when in fact this is not what
a Rule actually states is to undermine the very foundation
of the Game.

A single statement in a proposal can have far reaching
implications. The appending, deleting, and modifying of
Rules, as well as the introduction of new Rules must
be carefully considered by proposers. An unforeseen
linkage, an inadvertent omission, too many other factors
to enumerate, can quickly cause a group of Rules to be
contrary to the original intent of the proposer. The present
Ruleset should be considered in its entirety when crafting
changes to it (particularly with some of the large, sweeping
proposed changes we've seen of late). 

I could go on. It's not necessary. Be careful what you
propose. It might come around and bite you on the arse.

Triller



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