Re: [s-d] [s-b] Hmmm... another consultation

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ah, I transposed that. I thought he wrote "I have answered
Consultation No. 40". Dyslexia FTW.

BobTHJ

On Nov 23, 2007 10:05 AM, 0x4461736864617368 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The very first line in Priest Wooble's reply is his answer.
>
>
>
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 2007 8:27 AM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> I answer Consultation 40 No.
> >>
> >> Rule 5-1 explicitly allows Agreements that are not intended to comply
> >> with B's rules to be accepted as valid; it would be outside the spirit
> >> of the rules to require such agreements to be joined by a Game Action.
> >>
> >> Indeed, 5-2's text definitely suggests that Agreements which are not
> >> Factions are outside the game.  Both non-Faction Agreements and
> >> Factions are bound solely by their own internal mechanisms for
> >> deciding their membership and conducting any business that doesn't
> >> directly involve game actions within B.
> >>
> >>
> > You gave arguments but not an answer...
> >
> > BobTHJ
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-discuss mailing list
> > spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss