Jay Campbell on Fri, 7 Nov 2008 19:13:30 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-b] Consultation 139

Ed Murphy wrote:
> 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.

I claim this Answer to be Fun, Peachy and Consistent.
spoon-business mailing list