Re: [s-d] [s-b] spoon-business Digest, Vol 43, Issue 20

[Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:
> Ted Ofner wrote:
>> Consultation 27: TRUE
>> Consultation 28: FALSE
> 
> As much as I wish the opposite were true, I claim these consultations to
> be inconsistent. We've pretty much established Primo as a Player and not
> as a Faction, and my props that try to remove it as a player haven't
> passed. While I'd be happy for something to change Primo to be a Faction
> instead of a Player, a Consultation with justification of "it looks like
> one" isn't the way to do it.
> 

Primo fulfills all conditions for being a faction, and does not pass the 
membership test. I'd think that the answers to those consultations were 
straightforward.

Yes, we established Primo as a player before membership tests and before 
factions, it is only natural that interpretation should be different 
now, or is it a violation of the primary temporal directive ?




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