I'm not CFJing bc I promised not to spend money but you can if you want to.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> "Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this
>> rule change fails due to ambiguity?"
>>
>> No becau
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
"Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this
rule change fails due to ambiguity?"
No because "currently" refers to when the proposal was promulgated and
it is abundantly clear which rule I mean: there is only one "Rewards"
with the sen
"Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this
rule change fails due to ambiguity?"
No because "currently" refers to when the proposal was promulgated and
it is abundantly clear which rule I mean: there is only one "Rewards"
with the sentence being replaced.
On Fri, Sep 8,
I think it fails because "the rule currently not assigned a number called
"Rewards"," just doesn't exist anymore. I think it would fail similarly to
how something like "In the rule called 'Cuddlebeam is amazing', add: yadda
yadda" would also fail, because such a rule just doesn't exist.
On Fri, Se
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, nichdel wrote:
In the rule currently not assigned a number called "Rewards", replace the text
{{ * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies.}}
with
{{ *Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies. This reward can be claimed
a maximum of once per office per week f
5 matches
Mail list logo
