Geoffrey Spear on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:59:05 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Assigning Consultation


On Jan 10, 2008 5:25 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm not sure the answer is consistent

I think it was unambiguously true that no Player acquired the Device,
since there was no Default Owner specified and no reason to favor any
one Player over the others as the Owner.  The reasoning behind an
implicit non-Player DOO existing might be a bit shaky, but the rules
don't say that only Players are DOO's, and they clearly state that a
device must be owned by some DOO.

My Oracularity probably should have included a penalty for everyone
who read that proposal and didn't notice that it was creating a Device
until after it passed.  That sort of collective lack of critical
proposal reading can be dangerous when proposals overhaul more
critical bits of the game....
-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss