| Paul VanKoughnett on Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:40:42 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] The current gamestates, as I understand them |
I've been lurking on this list for a while, and will probably actually join the game since you've started a new one. But for now I'm just dropping in to say: in what way did the proposals state an explicit intention to modify only that document? Presumably, they (implicitly) intended to modify two documents -- the two extant rulesets -- and one of those intentions automatically failed. --Paul On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Eric Stucky <turiski.nomic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Haha, I think I like the new proposal more than "re-move law 4". Yes. > > > No outstanding proposals, since quotation marks aren't curly brackets. > Yeah, and while law 9 doesn't make it illegal, it probably makes it pretty useless. > > [ -Turiski ] > > _______________________________________________ > spoon-business mailing list > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss