[s-d] Re: [s-b] Peter submits p339 - Defendant's argument.

[Antonio Dolcetta <zagarna@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Walsh wrote:
> On: 1/12/06 4:45:42 PM this CFI was sent:
> > Subject: [s-b] [auto] Peter submits p339
> >
> > Peter has submitted a new Motion, p339.
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Motion 339/0: All Supers are Super
> > A CFI by Peter
> > Last modified on nweek 104, nday 1
> >
> > [[This is a CFI. It becomes Open at the end of Saturday at midnight UTC,
> and resolves at the end of next Wednesday at midnight UTC.]]
> > Statement:
> > Both Antonio's and Triller's recognitions and dice rolls for Charles's
> training on nweek 103 nday 12 were valid, and each incremented Charles's
> Skills accordingly.
> > Defendant: Triller
> >
> > List of changes:
> > Change the state of the game in accordance with the statement, as both
> sets of rolls increased Charles's Skills. [[I'm not really sure what else
> to put here.]]
> > [[
> > Plaintiff's Argument:
> > Rule 4-1 states that "Any Player holding a Ministry is known as a
> Minister of that Ministry."
> > Rule 4-4 states that "The Ministry of Housing is a Ministry; its Minister
> may be called the Super."
> > This sounds to me like each minister of Housing may be called the Super.
> > The ordinances of the Training Room include "A Player pays one Action
> Point to see a 2D3 roll that the Super calls."
> > Now, we don't really have any definition of what it means to call a roll.
> But a reasonable definition that fits game precedent is that the minister
> recognizes the action, rolls the dice, and announces the result.
> > But, we have more than one minister that "called" the roll. I don't see
> any reason why this is a problem. Since there *can* be more than one Super,
> and in fact is, any reference to "the Super" must refer to one of them. But
> it sure seems to me like it could just as easily be each of them.
> > So, each of the ministers can call such a roll, and have the results
> increment the Skills accordingly.a
> > Rule 4-4 itself contains similar language, saying that "The Manager is
> responsible for maintaining a Public Display of Motions." and "The Banker
> is responsible for tracking and maintaining...". What could those mean
> *except* that *each* such minister is responsible for those things? If only
> one minister were responsible for them, then what would the other minister
> be there for?
> > ]]
> > ---------------------------------
> [[
> Defendant's Argument:
> Unfortunately, Training Room Ordinances retained most of the poetic
> form of the Sonnet Proposal that created them. This could have been
> changed by later Proposal, but hasn't been yet.
> The fact that Trainging Room Ordinances specifcally say 
> "that the Super calls" is redundant and superfluous.
> By Rule 4-4, even without this clause, the Super is responsible for
> "any Condition or Attribute defined in Chapter 10 of the Rules."
>
> By the Plaintiff's reasoning, any Ministry that is held by more than
> a single Minister could and should have any action that falls in the
> purview of that Ministry acted on multiple times. An extreme example:
>
> Peter regularly posts a list of Amplitude changes and Genechip awards
> with the voting results each nweek, though there is nothing in 3-4 or
> 9-8 that places this courtesy in the Keeper's purview. These duties should
> really fall to the Secretary and the Banker. Now lets posit that there are
> two
> each of these latter Ministers and both recognize the Amplitude changes and
> Genechip bonuses for a given vote. By the Plaintiff's reasoning, this would
> grant double Amplitude bonuses and double Genechip bonuses. Take it one
> step further and posit two Deaths. Now Amplitude Amplifier effects are 
> counted twice! I don't believe this is desirable.
>
> Ultimately, the subsection 'Activated Abilities' in Rule 1-2 should be the
> defining statute:
> "An Object allowed to play an activated ability may do so as a Game
> Action by paying {cost} to cause {effect} to happen."
> Training Room Ordinances state:
> "A Player pays one Action Point to see a 2d3 roll that the Super calls."
> So, an Object (a Player) is allowed to play an activated ability as a Game
> Action by paying a cost (pays one Action Point) to cause an effect (to 
> see a 2D3 roll) to happen. By 4-4 the Super is responsible, even though
> it is explicit here.
> Since Charles had 6 Action Points at the time of Activating this Ability
> of the Training Room, e may perform this Game Action 6 times.
> Once 6 dice rolls have been performed in accordance with Rule 1-2,
> Charles has no APs remaining, and so any further dice rolls have not been
> payed for, and are thus illegal (or superfluous).
>
> The Training Room Ordinance is in question, but the arguments are
> formed around interpretations of rules:
> Plaintiff: Rules in Section 4,
> Defendant: A Rule in Section 1.
> By Rule 2-2, the Rule with the lower Section number takes precedence.
>
> Antonio rightly ruled that the first 6 dice rolls received from the SORC,
> were the proper rolls to apply in awarding Stat changes to Charles in 
> this matter.
>
> Triller
> ]]

Rather than the fact of there being two supers (it's silly to think that 
if there are two ministers things happen twice) I think that the thing 
we must look at is the exact wording of the training room ordinances.

A Player pays one Action Point to see a 2D3 roll that the Super calls.

it can mean either:
"one AP" -> "one roll" (that the super calls)
 or
"one AP" -> "the super calls a roll" -> and from this we could get to 
"each super calls a roll"

But why should we try to read it that way ?


--

	Antonio
    http://gelo.dolcetta.net
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss