| 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