Re: [s-d] [s-b] Intents

[Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 18:58 -0500, comex wrote:
> I intend, with 4 Support and no Objections within 2 rdays, to Approve
> the following Public Display:
> http://b.nomic.net/index.php?title=Rules_d48ec589b298513a7798426aa97d5347&oldid=9120&action=raw
> [oldid for normal Rules page won't work due to transclusion.  Only
> Rules 5E1 and 2 are changed.]
I won't object yet, just in case, but this is very ugly (that shouldn't
be in rule 5e2!), and also, I don't think mackerel are broken.
Ownability and Transferability aren't specified as switches; so what?
They're still rules-defined attributes of objects, pretty obviously from
the rules. And as Owner isn't defined anywhere, its common English
definition becomes the relevant one, which is very similar to the
meaning you're trying to approve into the ruleset.
-- 
ais523

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