Jay Campbell on Fri, 7 Nov 2008 19:13:30 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [s-b] Consultation 139 |
Ed Murphy wrote: > 0x44 wrote: > > >> I answer Consultation 139 NO. >> >> Reasoning: >> >> A cursory examination of rule 4e33 shows that Currencies are not >> game objects, but instead are an Attribute of the class of game objects >> called Currency Owning Objects. From 4e11, Attributes are not Game >> Objects. Since the Rules of B Nomic does not recognize any Currency >> Objects, it is impossible to destroy Currency (and hence Mackerel) in >> any fashion. The argument that rule 4e73 creates that ability in Guilty >> Parties fails, also. By Rule 4e75, since neither rule 4e33 or 4e73 claim >> precedence over the other, Rule 4e33 takes precedence because of its >> lower rule number. Since that is the case, the clause in 4e73 creating >> the ability to destroy mackerel must be invalid. >> >> Oracularity: >> { >> Strike the following sentence from Rule 4e73: >> { >> When the Judge Assigns a Punishment of a fine in macks the Guilty >> Player is obligated and is able to destroy that number of macks for no >> effect. Any Player who has not fulfilled their obligation to destroy >> macks as a result of a punishment is not a Registered Voter. >> } >> } >> > > I claim this to be inconsistent. Destruction is not explicitly defined > as being restricted to game objects; destruction of currency can be > reasonably translated to reduction of the relevant attribute. Also, > the Oracularity does not repair the clause enforcing payment of fines, > nor does it address similar clauses in Rules 4E4 and 4E89. > > I claim this Answer to be Fun, Peachy and Consistent. _______________________________________________ spoon-business mailing list spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business