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

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

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> *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 Reasoning: there were unfilled ministerial obligations and outdated PDs.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.


This is Consultation 155. I assign it to Priest comex.

>
>
> *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.


This is Consultation 156. I assign it to Priest Ty-Guy6.


>
>
> *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."
> }
>

This is Consultation 157. I assign it to Priest Ty-Guy6. Oh the suspense...

>
> *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."


This is Consultation 158. I assign it to Priest Charles.

>
>
> *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.]]


This is Consultation 159. I assign it to Priest Charles.

>
>
> *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.


This is Consultation 160. I assign it to Priest j.

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