Re: [s-d] [s-b] Multiple names, part two.

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:49 PM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:06:14 -0400
>> From: teucer@xxxxxxxxx
>> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Multiple names, part two.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:41 AM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:49:28 -0400
>> >> From: teucer@xxxxxxxxx
>> >> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>> >> Subject: Re: [s-b] [s-d]  Multiple names, part two.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:43 AM, M P Darke <darkemalcolm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > In that case I make it 11 Kicks in the Ass. I'll take 5.
>> >>
>> >> NttPF, and you have to tell us who you're kicking anyhow. Like this:
>> >>
>> >> For each of the following names, I kick all players who have that name
>> >> and are not me in the ass: {{Marr965}}, {{compsciguy}}, {{JamesB}},
>> >> {{Murphy}}, {{Gitchel, The One and Only Respected One}}. In all cases,
>> >> the kicks are for failing to obey the requirements of Rule 2.
>> >>
>> >> [[Guys, you had three ndays to come up with unique names. Only 0x44,
>> >> formerly Rule --9999, chose to do so. (I'm not kicking players who
>> >> didn't post in the meantime, since kicking people for not paying
>> >> attention seems unsporting.) Note that the validity of these kicks can
>> >> only be determined pending 0x44's judgement on CFI 123A1.]]
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Kicks cannot be given in response to inaction: "Whenever a player performs an action that is on the List of Generally Abhorred
>> > Stuff in a public forum, any player may respond in a public forum to the forum message containing that action, indicating that
> e is
>> > giving that player a Kick in the Ass, and the reason why, specifying the name of the player performing the action that is on the
>> > LOGAS."
>> >
>> > I did fail to perform an action which the rules say I must do but I did not do it to the Public Forum. In any case, I'm not
>> > recognizing these.
>>
>> The action of not doing things you are required to do is on the LOGAS.
>
>
> You can't not do an action to the public forum, so that entry on the LOGAS is unenforcible. If you believe I'm wrong then please
> indicate the public forum message in which I failed to change my name within 3 ndays or 3 wdays.

You failed to change your name to the PF.

I contend that if performing an action requires no post, for example
if it happens automatically, then it happens publicly unless the rules
somehow make it possible for it not to be.

...although considering this issue, I'm noticing a possible small
rules hole that I can't see any way to exploit short of superhuman
levels of exoticness in rule interpretation. But something might come
to me.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss