Craig Daniel on Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:01:13 -0700 (MST)
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [s-d] [s-b] Hm. I can't find any indication that non-enacted proposals are useless.
- To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Hm. I can't find any indication that non-enacted proposals are useless.
- From: Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:01:09 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OiEClSkVY4u6hnINnjRTCpDFOhzIHzxLfx9gSLC+K40=; b=M2fRZHmHE8VMcLs/TeLEx7onwfIvlvVhEwGQxSxv7JmQ2MNABus1DVIKgJ9EIm1PHK T7MATdznXZePpf0/J7gICGGEQwOliNXjTKs+vEThY5lWJmhS17QMF999CeHX7DKg1nM/ sCCd0V61p+jaonLFbkWPW0JdWkqldGTp+qScE=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=lw+q6wv4U5W0ydz0e/HTM/dBPgaC3KSSG71iLyeYlvPNTMhfg/P31kCZN/MVkyAmdq UDQ+qXJkN4yYeAXGL4eV/CpfuNiGk+yNh38ru2b9gHzPNfAbuHdiv8vNYR+inXZe4JSV 5edm1PgrlmkG9zKxGX3K/DHc1CK0/2V03CjPU=
- In-reply-to: <4C27C51B.10301@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <AANLkTilXTq6sN5efgmO1speW_v3hZyCK8BSH9pvC9Ev2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C27C51B.10301@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> CFI: In Rule 79, "its content may be modified using proposals"
> should be interpreted as "its content may be modified via the
> adoption of a proposal, as specified by that proposal".
Gratuitous: it would seem to me that this mechanism allows it to be
modified *by* a proposal, but not by a player making use of said
proposal. A player, after all, is not normally said to have amended
the rules even if they submit the proposal. Therefore, rule 79 should
be interpreted as granting us the ability to make use of proposals in
some other way - although, as the mechanism is not specified, it's
entirely possible I have the details wrong and my LOGAS-amendment is
invalid despite the falsity of the above claim.
spoon-discuss mailing list