On 7/12/2019 12:06 AM, omd wrote:
In any case, the omission is enough of a crack to wedge Rule 217
factors into*, and "common sense" very strongly suggests that N is
expected to be a number. As such, I judge that it must be. It is
less clear what kinds of numbers are allowable values for N, b
Dang, I wanted that to work :(.
Although this raises another question: since I pointed my finger at
myself specifically for the Class "I'm a string!" Crime of Oathbreaking,
but that's not the crime I'm guilty of, can the Referee impose CHoJ for
the Class 2 Crime of Oathbreaking, or would anoth
2 matches
Mail list logo
