Re: [s-b] Consultation 203

[Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:54 AM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
> > Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:45:50 -0800
> > From: emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [s-b] Reassignments
> >
> > I assign Consultation 203 to Priest JamesB.
>
> Consultation 203 is: Rule 5e57 exists
>
> I answer Consultation 203 YES.
>
> Reasoning: {ais523 failed to change the contract as nothing gave him the
> power to change the Rules. Since the Rules specified were not destroyed,
> ais523 could not change the contract. If ais523 had submitted a Tweak and
> activated it, that would have been allowed. If ais523 had submitted a
> proposal which passed, that would have been allowed.
>
> To summarize: ais523 cannot change the gamestate like that (at least I
> don't think so - this is dependent upon Consultation 198 becoming pondered
> with an answer of NO).}
>

Yep, well, I'm pretty much convinced by ais523's line of argument.

I declare the answer to Consultation 203 to be INCONSISTENT.

Congratulations, ais523. I really do think you won that one!

BP

PS: It's not ruleset "vandalism" when the scammer fixes the problem that let
em scam in the first place...
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business