Subject: You want Pedantic? I'll GIVE you pedantic!

From: "Tyrethali Ansrath" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:59:22 -0400

Technically, the rule says that, if you have no doctrine, you can create a 
doctrine, *or* you can join another player's Doctrine. When Goateus created 
his little easily influenced Doctrine, he shouldn't have been able to also 
join a doctrine, and thus, can't have submitted any proposals. Oh, and it 
technically applies to anyone else who made a Doctrine, too. Which would be 
everyone except Kevan, I think.

Do we really want to play a game of pedantic bickering, especially when it 
was blindingly obvious to almost everyone what the obvious interpretation of 
the rule was, and this interpretation was accepted and played under in good 
faith?

-Tyrethali, refraining from posting a number so large it would be a waste of 
your time to download it, and settling for "34".

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 18 Jun 2002 10:30:08 -0400

You're welcome to disagree with my interpretation, but it would be
best to do so as a Point of Order.

-- 
- Doc

---

From: "Goateus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 21:16:28 -0000

I agree that being over-pedantic is probably not what we want, which 
is why I did not submit a point of order over this. I do disagree 
with the interpretation that you give below though.

The ruled stated (changed now anyway) that "If at any 
time a player is not following a Doctrine, they may either create a 
Doctrine by posting it's name to the mailing list, or choose another 
player's Doctrine". 

The "or" is important, but so is the "at any time". I think that this 
easily allows for the two tasks to be performed consequetively. This 
is in fact why I posted them as seperate messages, so that each 
action would in fact be time stamped differently (I knew that being 
pedantic would invite the same in return).