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

[Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
>  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.


Agreed. It's a may, not a shall. Nothing allows the possibility of
performing the action before the two nday limit (unfortunately).

Any other supported actions performed prematurely since this rule was
changed? There might be some we thought succeeded which actually didn't.

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