Re: [s-b] Consultation 52

["William Berard" <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/26/07, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I claim this INCONSISTENT. This ruling is based on the assumption that
> no Game Object can be an External Force. This is in flat contradiction
> with the rules: by Rule 1-3, every Outsider, and thus every Player, is
> an External Force by definition.
>
> Were the game to end, the AFO would indeed cease to be a Faction, but
> the AFO itself would persist, and this is the only requirement for
> being an External Force.


It would persist as an agreement (lower case A), not recognized by the game
(since it would cease to exist). The Faction, (capital F) as in the B Nomic
Agreement (capital A), itself, would not exist, since it needs to be
recognized as such, by the game. As such, a Faction cannot be an External
force.

I therefore claim this CONSISTENT, as it is just a particular example of the
general case dealt with in Consultation 48.

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