| 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