Re: [s-b] Consultation 48

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

I also claim 48 to be INCONSISTENT on the same grounds.

Of course, I believe that the intent of the rules is to allow only
individuals, not Agreements to become Players, but the reasoning in
this particular case is flawed and would create a bad precedent.

--Wooble

On Nov 26, 2007 12:14 PM, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I claim this INCONSISTENT, on the same grounds that I claimed 52 to be
> INCONSISTENT, which is, in a nutshell, that a Game Object can still be
> an External Force and indeed this happens all the time, so the fact
> that a particular entity happens to be a Faction does NOT mean it
> isn't also an External Force.
>
> --
> Wonko
>
>
> On Nov 25, 2007, at 11:16 AM, 0x4461736864617368 wrote:
>
> > I answer Consultation 48:
> >
> > No, a game Object cannot be both a Player and a Faction. I defer to
> > Will's reasoning.
> >
> > --
> > --
> > 0x4461736864617368;
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-business mailing list
> > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>



-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business