| Jamie Dallaire on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:33:08 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] blah |
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 9:50 PM, comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > What's worrying here is that there's no real recourse for if the > > requirement isn't met later (but is at the time). As far as I can tell, > > the EF stays the same, the Pause keeps incrementing as normal, and the > > emergency never finishes if nobody can access the EF at all (in which > > case, we start a recursive Emergency). In a case like this where some > > people can access the EF but not others, then as far as I can tell the > > people who can access the EF are the only ones who can propose and vote. > > So we start a sub-Emergency. What's the problem? I think ais523 is right about that. However, the easy way out (well, unless all PFs are down too) is for some Players to Calm down. Then the Emergency can be started again elsewhere, though it's just annoying to reset the Pause. Of course, this doesn't apply where a cabal is causing the emergency... BP _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss