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

[Warrigal <ihope127+w@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Elliott Hird
<penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2008, at 13:38, Alexander Smith wrote:
>> From 5e2, yes. They're still mentioned in 5e28, not explicitly, but
>> clearly enough to indicate that they're some sort of property, if not
>> obviously a switch. Or does repealing text from one rule now suddenly
>> repeal it from all other rules too?
>
> Let's just infer everything.

Well, yes. If the rules use an English-language term and don't define
it, the meaning should be inferred. If the rules state that something
should happen but don't state how, a mechanism should be inferred,
especially if there's an obvious one: for example, the Emergency rule
states that the votes shall be tallied and the selected proposal shall
take effect; it's obvious that "the selected proposal" is the one that
wins according to the tally, as no other interpretation makes nearly
as much sense.

If you're in the middle of a road, a car is coming, and the rules say
"walk to the side of the road", don't stay where you are because the
rule doesn't say which side.

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