Re: [s-b] Consultation 85: Answer

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 3, 2008 8:04 PM, Anything McGee <anythingmcgee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Greetings. My Answer to Cons. 85 is below:
>
> Answer: TRUE.
>
> Rule 35 states that a device "is a type of game object." Rule 2 states
> that "Game Objects can only be created, destroyed, or modified if
> allowed by the Rules, in a manner explicitly governed by the Rules."
> And Rule 35 allows only one method of destroying a device: "The owner
> of a device may destroy it by expressing the wish to do so in a public
> forum."
>
> Thus, the Rapier that was owned by the Player pikhq still exists in B
> Nomic and there were more than four Rapiers at the time of the
> Consultation's submission.
>
> [[The Unbeliever in this Consultation also informally asked who the
> owner of the loose Rapier is, and I choose not to provide a definitive
> or official response to that question. My initial thought is that the
> "device owner" Attribute is simply null. Perhaps a Proposal is in
> order to clarify this sort of situation.]]

I claim this answer is INCONSISTENT with doctrine.

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