On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:46 PM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > (/me watches as people turn around their arguments and start claiming it > isn't a dependent action after all.)
sure it is. 16:47 < comex> without member objection = without 1 objections, with the eligibility restriction (as allowed by R2124) that only members can object 16:47 < comex> A rule authorizing the performance of 16:47 < comex> a dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of 16:47 < comex> players to support or object to that specific action. 16:47 < ais523> err, contracts aren't rules 16:48 < ais523> that specifically says rules Interesting. Fix proposal coming up, but it doesn't allow the scam (just allows anyone to object to contract-defined "without member objection" clauses) -- -c.
