Ed Murphy on Fri, 7 Nov 2008 18:59:08 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] Consultation 139

0x44 wrote:

> I answer Consultation 139 NO.
> Reasoning:
>     A cursory examination of rule 4e33 shows that Currencies are not 
> game objects, but instead are an Attribute of the class of game objects 
> called Currency Owning Objects. From 4e11, Attributes are not Game 
> Objects. Since the Rules of B Nomic does not recognize any Currency 
> Objects, it is impossible to destroy Currency (and hence Mackerel) in 
> any fashion. The argument that rule 4e73 creates that ability in Guilty 
> Parties fails, also. By Rule 4e75, since neither rule 4e33 or 4e73 claim 
> precedence over the other, Rule 4e33 takes precedence because of its 
> lower rule number. Since that is the case, the clause in 4e73 creating 
> the ability to destroy mackerel must be invalid.
> Oracularity:
> {
>     Strike the following sentence from Rule 4e73:
>     {
>        When the Judge Assigns a Punishment of a fine in macks the Guilty 
> Player is obligated and is able to destroy that number of macks for no 
> effect. Any Player who has not fulfilled their obligation to destroy 
> macks as a result of a punishment is not a Registered Voter.
>     }
> }

I claim this to be inconsistent.  Destruction is not explicitly defined
as being restricted to game objects; destruction of currency can be
reasonably translated to reduction of the relevant attribute.  Also,
the Oracularity does not repair the clause enforcing payment of fines,
nor does it address similar clauses in Rules 4E4 and 4E89.

spoon-business mailing list