| Craig Daniel on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:39:00 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject) |
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:31 PM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Bringing Ocularities back would be a good idea and people can declare them consistent/inconsistent so it is democratic. The result > would be a more secure ruleset where all the fiddly rules questions that have come up are patched with an explicit explanation that > new Players can easily read along with the other rules. How about if, instead, we give Priests the power to add explanatory comment text to the rules? That way it's there to clarify things, but to actually fix the problems that you judge are present you have to use the normal ruleset-tinkering mechanisms. I really don't like the idea of people having to declare something they agree with INCONSISTENT just because it's got a shitty patch associated with it. > _________________________________________________________________ > Love Hotmail? Check out the new services from Windows Live! No, actually, I don't. It sucks at putting newlines in where they are needed. _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss