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

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

> 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.

Well, I'm only talking about one nweek.  And in fact in this case only
Peter has to agree - he's the rule tag administrator.  I'm just saying
that yes, we need to propose a change, but I still think if Peter
agrees we could play this week.

> 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. [...]

Well, obviously - that *is* the whole point of the game.

My statement wasn't meant as an apologia for a poorly worded ruletag
prop - although I should point out that I had the thing posted on
spoon-discuss for over an nweek and no-one else spotted it either.


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

::shrug:: if someone makes a mistake in a proposal then it bites us
*all* on the arse, friend.  Not me especially.  I mean, a nice turn of
phrase, but not entirely sure what you are trying to say here.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss