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

[Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 11:27 -0500, comex wrote:
> I'm just putting the clause back as it was.  I agree with you that it
> shouldn't be in Rule 5Ee2, but if you want to refactor the language
> into a new rule, why not submit a standard proposal?  In the meantime,
> no Rule (as far as I can see) says that it's possible as a Game Action
> to transfer stuff, so...
...so as far as I can tell, however mackerel and ownership and
transferability are defined at the moment, it's still the case that
everyone has as many mackerel as the Refresh Proposal gave them, i.e.
nobody is a Bum, and our proposal system works after all.
-- 
ais523

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