Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 203

[teucer@xxxxxxxxx]

On 1/26/09, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> From: ais523@xxxxxxxxxx
>> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:07:07 +0000
>> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 203
>>
>> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 12:04 -0700, Tyler wrote:
>> > Oh, so you mean that Rule 57 allows Contracts to specify activites
>> > (which
>> > are necessary to amend the Contract), and thus makes those activities
>> > specified indirectly by the rules?
>> Yes. So rule 5e10 makes them possible as a game action.
>
> That part of 5E10 only applies to the rules and does not give any game
> document the power to define rules, it merely adds a clarification to the
> document that are explicitly defined elsewhere as being able to change the
> rules.
>
> That means that since the contract was not capable of making rules, it
> couldn't define that ais523 was capable of changing the rules like that but
> if ais523 had used legitimate means to change the rules (like a Tweak), 5E10
> would have made it possible as a game action.
>
> Besides, by voting inconsistent, are you saying that you WANT the ruleset
> vandalised?

Nope. They're saying it was.

In Agora, judgments tend to be rooted in what's good for the game. In
B, we tend to suck it up and start having an emergency when somebody
breaks the game.

(I'm not making a claim myself, since I believe the scam failed but am
not sufficiently certain of this to call it CONSISTENT.)
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss