Charles Schaefer on Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:59:31 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] Questioning

> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Tyler Coleman <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I submit the following consultation:
> > {{In the case of a paradox in following the rules (e.g. a rule cannot be
> > followed, because it would be against a rule to do so) is there a
> > rule-defined course of action?}}
> This is Consultation #125.  I assign it to Priest Charles.

Priest's Ruling: Yes. Rule 4E75 defines a procedure to be followed when
there is a conflict in the rules.

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 3:38 AM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I submit the following Consultation:
> > {{ Is Charles currently the Minister of Law?
> > Unbeliever: Charles
> > Reasoning: Proposal 379, which passed, quote, "Set the Powers of 'Rule
> > Powers and Precedence' and 'In Case of Emergency' to 1.
> > Charles did not display these Powers, (as of the submission of
> > this Consultation) but displayed that all rules were 1/2 (unless
> otherwise
> > specified), on the Rules page.
> > I submitted a transaction (August 16) that removed him from the MoL on
> > August 18, on the condition that he had not fulfilled his obligation (and
> > that he held the ministry).
> > }}
> > /* Let's see how far this will go. I'm guessing it goes FALSE. But the
> > ball's in your court Charles. */
> This is Consultation #126.  I assign it to Priest Billy Pilgrim.

Unbeliever's Arguments: Rule 4E50 states "If the rules require a Ministry to
maintain a public display, then that Ministry is obligated to update that
public display to reflect the current gamestate whenever the data related to
it is modified. However, this obligation is fulfilled even if there are
accidental errors and/or omissions in the updated data of the public
display." My omission was accidental and has been corrected. (
spoon-business mailing list