Zefram wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> In balance, it better serves the game to require rigid specifications
>> of individuals,
>
> I think it would take a rule amendment to do this.
I'll quibble and I'll say I disagree here: the rules say in many places
that things must be specified, but it is game cu
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>It is conceivable (though unlikely), that
>if the Promotor changed hands at the last minute, than the punishment
>could be applied to the new officeholder.
This would not be legal. R1504 is clear that the defendant is a
specific person. While "the
[I am still on the fence on this one. This is how I'm leaning.
counter-arguments welcomed].
CFJ statement: pikhq initiated a criminal case in Message-id:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Proto-judgement:
The message in question contains two parts.
The first part of this message, prior to the
3 matches
Mail list logo
