On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:46 -0400, comex wrote: >> Issue 1 - "clear indication" > Dependent actions don't require a "clear indication" nowadays, but need > to be "previously unambiguously described". Quite possibly this makes a > difference.
The content of your message would also seem to make this precedent possibly inapplicable. In the earlier case, it could easily be argued that the non-game action content of the message was intended specifically to dissuade players from reading the message. I'm not sure it's reasonable to argue that the purpose of a publishing a report is to dissuade players from reading it, although arguably the cruft in reports that's not actually part of the rules-defined report comes close. If you'd buried your scam in the list of current players I'd say the precedent was definitely not applicable.
