Re: [s-b] Consultation 85: Answer

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 4, 2008 12:38 PM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
I also claim this answer to be INCONSISTENT with established doctrine.
I recommend that the new priest submit an Oracularity with their
answer to rectify this problem.

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