[s-b] Consultation assignment

[Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

{{ Does the fact that the Field is geometrically impossible mean that
it doesn't exist? }}

This is Consultation 83.  I assign it to Priest Aaron C.

{{
Is 0x44 the Ministry of Ministry as of the time this Consultation was submitted?
}}

[[MoQ commentary: a Player is not a Ministry]]

This is Consultation 84.  I assign it to Priest Billy Pilgrim.

{
As of the time at which this Consultation is submitted, do there exist more
than 4 Rapiers within the Game of B?

Reasoning: According to Rule 35, there is an Attribute "device owner" with a
scope of all devices and a range of all device owner objects (which we shall
call DOO (singular) or DOOs (plural)). Further, the rule states that a DOO
is a type of Game Objet that may own devices, and that all Players are
DOOs. According to Rule 2, Game Objects may only be created, destroyed, or
modified if allowed by the Rules, in a manner explicitly governed by the
Rules. The Rules specify no Game Objects other than Players as
DOOs; therefore Players are the only DOOs. The former Player named pikhq was
the device owner of a Rapier before he Forfeit the game earlier today. There
currently exist 4 other Rapiers in the game, which are owned by Hose, 0x44,
Wooble, and Billy Pilgrim. When pikhq Forfeit, he ceased to be a Player and,
by extension, also ceased to be a DOO. The Rapier that was owned by pikhq,
then, could be said to have lost its device owner. Further, the Rules
specify no mechanism that stipulates a transfer of ownership or the
destruction of devices owned by forfeiting Players. The Rapier formerly
owned by pikhq should thus still exist. However, the Attribute "device
owner" applies to all devices, and the device owner object can only be a
Player (it cannot be "no one"). Does the Rapier in question currently exist,
in addition to the 4 other Rapiers? An additional query that falls outside
the scope of this Consultation: if it exists, who is its owner?
}

This is Consultation 85.  I assign it to Priest Anything McGee.

{
As of the time at which this Consultation is submitted, at an exchange rate
of 5 mackerel for 1 point, would it be possible for the Player named Dominov
to exchange all of his points for exactly 500 mackerel?

Reasoning: The above exchange would necessitate 100 points. I submit that
Dominov has AT LEAST 28 points. Because the rules do not provide a default
score for any game object, the number of points that Dominov had upon
joining the game is undefined. As such, and regardless of game custom, it is
just as valid to assume that Dominov started with 72 points as it is to
assume that e started with 0 points. Rule 17 states that score cannot be
negative, and we can state with confidence that Dominov now has 28 points
more than e started with. The number of points e currently holds cannot be
precisely defined, but it lies somewhere between 28 and positive infinity.
This interval includes 100. Also note that Dominov became a Player shortly
AFTER the Public Display of points was ratified by Wooble's Refresh
Proposal, during nweek 135.
}

This is Consultation 86.  I assign it to Priest Wooble.

Codae
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business