Re: [s-d] Grand Chancellor?

[comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Mike McGann wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2007 10:04 PM, comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > How could you possibly interpret 1-10 otherwise?
>
> I read it as:
>
> You have 1 nday to declare an action to be invalid.
> After 1 nday, the action is valid no matter what.

I interpret it as I'm pretty sure it was meant to be interpreted: before 
the nday, the action would be valid if and only if the Rules actually 
allow it.

Although maybe that interpretation would violate the Temporal Prime 
Directive?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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