User talk:Mike Rosoft
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
In regards to your questionon [[356]]. You do know that [[344]] failed. Therefore using [[344]] as an example is a little of moot point. Also [[111]] implies that a rule should only do one particular thing at a time. However all that would be needed in [[344]] would have been a clause which made it exempt from [[356]] ergo problem solved. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 09:29, 18 December 2006 (EST) | In regards to your questionon [[356]]. You do know that [[344]] failed. Therefore using [[344]] as an example is a little of moot point. Also [[111]] implies that a rule should only do one particular thing at a time. However all that would be needed in [[344]] would have been a clause which made it exempt from [[356]] ergo problem solved. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 09:29, 18 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Rule [[111]] actually just says that if a rule references more than one rule, that is grounds for debate. There is no rule preventing it. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 15:28, 18 December 2006 (EST) | ||
Current revision as of 20:28, 18 December 2006
Welcome to the game, Mike! I hope you have a great time here. --Simulacrum 19:38, 7 December 2006 (EST)
Indeed...greetings. I hope that your time here is adequate. --Tucana25 20:41, 7 December 2006 (EST)
In regards to your questionon 356. You do know that 344 failed. Therefore using 344 as an example is a little of moot point. Also 111 implies that a rule should only do one particular thing at a time. However all that would be needed in 344 would have been a clause which made it exempt from 356 ergo problem solved. --Dayd 09:29, 18 December 2006 (EST)
Rule 111 actually just says that if a rule references more than one rule, that is grounds for debate. There is no rule preventing it. --Tucana25 15:28, 18 December 2006 (EST)
