Re: [s-d] [s-b] Murphy's refresh proto v1.2

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Billy Pilgrim wrote:

> Ah yes, I remember that. And I did like your interpretation, as it is true
> that nowhere in the rules does it say that my (or anyone else's) declaration
> of invalidity actually makes an action invalid. True enough. However, the
> rule is written such that (I now realize...) your interpretation would make
> it as, if not more, disastrous than did the interpretation that everyone
> seemed to stick to. That is, with no way for any action I pose to actually
> be made invalid, and with any actions I pose automatically valid unless made
> invalid, regardless of what the rules say about my actions,

False dilemma.  My suggested interpretation of 1-10, while not making
an action invalid, /would/ stop it from becoming automatically valid
(its validity would then need to be evaluated via consultation).  On
the other hand, my refresh proto would repeal both parts of this
mechanism (leaving it to subsequent regular proposals to replace them
with a more workable system).

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