Re: [s-b] Consultation assignments

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > teucer to Consultation 130 "At the time of submission of this
> > consultation, is the player named Charles the only player with a Baby
> > Blue sock?" (was Phil's)
>
> Answer: YES.
>
> Reasoning: I find the logic behind j's old ruling persuasive - but for
> the fact that it is missing a key step which invalidates his premise.
> As I understand the rules, the fact that only a corporation can
> willfully destroy socks does not mean that the socks cannot be
> destroyed by the actions of the rules as those rules are traditionally
> understood to operate. I must therefore agree with those who found his
> old ruling inconsistent and overturn j's previous Answer. It is thus
> my contention that socks vanish when their sockholders cease to be
> players.
>
> Oracularity: To clarify the above and prevent further confusion, the
> following text will be added to the end of rule 4E86:
> {
>
> When a player leaves the game, all of their socks are automatically
> destroyed.
> }


I Claim this Answer and Oracularity to Consultation 130 to be INCONSISTENT.

I agree with the Answer itself. I think the Oracularity would be welcome.
But the reasoning (which leads to the Oracularity) is, in my opinion, off
the mark.

The only Rule which allows for the destruction of socks is 4E68, and then
only by the appropriate Laundry Corp. 4E2 explicitly says that Game Objects
are not to be destroyed in any manner not called for in the Rules. Since no
Rule says that Socks cease to be when their Potential Sockholder quits, I'm
forced to disagree with teucer.

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