Re: [s-d] [s-b] Hm. I can't find any indication that non-enacted proposals are useless.

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:13:28 -0400
> From: teucer@xxxxxxxxx
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Hm. I can't find any indication that non-enacted	proposals are useless.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:04 PM, M P Darke <darkemalcolm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I object to that amendment, if that is possible. This is for the reason that that action causes what would, in one of the old Rulesets,
> 
> You're welcome to raise an objection, but the rules don't make it a
> dependent action, so I doubt your objection does anything.
> 
> > be known as a Dictatorship, at least if the Players wish to avoid carrying out actions on the LOGAS.
> 
> And? What would be the point of a scam that didn't do things people
> might not prefer to see happen?
> 
> (Also, getting a Kick in the Ass is a really very minor consequence;
> it's hardly a proper dictatorship.)

Also, Kicks in the Ass require the Registrar to recognize them so your dictatorship needs my support. I'm going to wait for the CFI to be judged before I do anything about this.

 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/
Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss