Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultations on the Pencil Sharpener

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Billy Pilgrim wrote:

> I think the only grounds for it having happened anyway is that the initial
> Laws for uncoloured squares don't use the dependent actions mechanism (which
> requires intent, support/objection, then performance). The initial laws just
> use vague "with consent" language that could be interpreted a number of
> ways.

Ordinary-language interpretation still requires performance to be a
separate step from intent and support.  Declaring otherwise would
require explicit legislation to that effect (e.g. someone mentioned
Agora's "a supporter may do the performance step unless the rules
specify otherwise").

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