[s-b] MoQ Report - Consultations 155-160 Priest Assignments

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

I will shortly send a request to the dice server for random Priest
assignments for the Consultations listed below. There are 6 Consultations
awaiting assignment. I will roll 6 times. If any rolls indicate that a
Consultation should be assigned to an ineligible Player (Supplicant or
Unbeliever), I will send new rolls for the Consultations in question.

The Ordained Players are: j, ehird, Charles, Ty-Guy6, Ivan Hope/Warrigal,
and comex

*Consultation 155:*

Supplicant: ehird

Question: Did Jay violate the rules by turning the clock on in the
above-quoted message?

[[the above-quoted message, from j, said: "I turn the clock on."]]
[[Supplicant, please use the Unbeliever mechanism. Had I assigned this
Consultation immediately after you submitted it, it would have gone to the
only eligible Priest: j. It may yet...]]

Reasoning: there were unfilled ministerial obligations and outdated PDs. We
need updated reports to play this game. The pragmatic clock is just to avoid
clock crises. I recommend a very short Jail time or a minimal mack fine, as
this is the first offense.

*Consultation 156:*

Supplicant: Billy Pilgrim

Question: At the time of this Consultation's submission, is it currently
nday 2?

Unbeliever: j

Reasoning: j attempted to turn on the clock when nweek 152 first started,
and turned it off the next day. If he succeeded, then it should by now be
nday 3 (the clock having been turned on for real nyesterday). If not, it's
nday 2. He may not have succeeded because the rule defining Ministries was
missing its proper text. But some have argued that Ministries were at the
time defined implicitly, each in their own rule.

*Consultation 157:*

Supplicant: Warrigal/Ivan Hope

Question: There is a Player that is not a Bum.

[[Priest: please note that a) this is to be read as "is There is a Player
that is not a Bum true?" and b) the platonically correct Answer (if there is
one) to this answer may highly depend on whether or not certain Public
Displays have been approved to define ownership in Rule 5E2 and to ensure
that Players each have m100.]]

Gratuitous Argument from Ty-Guy6:
{
Rule 5E29 says "Players with less than 50 mackerel are Bums." This says
nothing about ownership. So what does "with mackerel" mean for a Player? I
suggest that we use such ambiguous terms quite often when describing mack.
We need to loosen our interpretation a little. I think people should be able
to "own" mack even if they can't "Own" mack. If we get too nitpicky about
simple things that everyone understands like ownership, it will contribute
to confusion and chaos. (It has already.)

If you think we don't use ambiguities often, read through some more of Rlue
5E29 and see if you can't find three examples. I can see about six:
"

Only Legal Entities can own mackerel.

Any Legal Entity may destroy any amount of mackerel in their possession as a
Game Action.

An amount of mackerel can be referred to by a lowercase m followed by the
amount. /* e.g. "m5" = 5 mackerel */

Whenever an entity becomes a Player, if they have less than 100 macks, all
their mackerel are destroyed and they gain m100.

At the beginning of each nweek, each Active Player gains m25."
}

*Consultation 158:*

Supplicant: Geoffrey Spear ("wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx")

Question: Did JamesB violate Rule 5E38 by posting commercial spam to the
Public Forum in the above-quoted message and elsewhere?

[[the above-quoted message said: "Are you a PC?  Upload your PC story and
show the world http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/122465942/direct/01/";]]

Unbeliever: JamesB

Gratuitous Arguments from ehird: "no, because it was not the meaning of spam
as in bulk or excess mail that we use."

*Consultation 159:*

Supplicant: ehird

Question: Is the answer to this consultation NO?

[[I am highly tempted to ZOT this Consultation as irrelevant. However, I am
curious to see how it is handled. The Priest is free to ask that I ZOT or
reassign it, if e so desires.]]

*Consultation 160:*

Supplicant: Sgeo

Question: Is the MoM ever allowed to turn the Clock On?

Reasoning: When there are no unfulfilled Ministerial obligations, the MoM is
obligated to turn the Clock On. However, when the MoM is so obligated, there
exists an unfulfilled Ministerial obligation,preventing the MoM from turning
the Clock On. But then, there exists no such obligation, etc.

--

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