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

[Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Argument: Rule 5e11 does not specify that dependent actions requiring
> support alone may be prevented by objection. 
>   

You're correct here. I missed "If it's without N objections..." in the 
failure test, so extraneous objections have no effect if the calling 
rule doesn't specify lack of objection.

I don't believe the Rules were violated, I think the action failed (and 
your PD is wrong) but it would work in 2 ndays.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss