Re: [s-b] The obligatory Consultation

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

I become ordained. And I want to throw in my own two bits to argue TRUE for
this consultation:

Rule 5E29 says "Players with less than 50 mackerel are Bums." This says
nothing about ownership. So what does "with mackerel" mean for a Player? I
suggest that we use such ambiguous terms quite often when describing mack.
We need to loosen our interpretation a little. I think people should be able
to "own" mack even if they can't "Own" mack. If we get too nitpicky about
simple things that everyone understands like ownership, it will contribute
to confusion and chaos. (It has already.)

If you think we don't use ambiguities often, read through some more of Rlue
5E29 and see if you can't find three examples. I can see about six:
"

Only Legal Entities can own mackerel.

Any Legal Entity may destroy any amount of mackerel in their possession as a
Game Action.

An amount of mackerel can be referred to by a lowercase m followed by the
amount. /* e.g. "m5" = 5 mackerel */

Whenever an entity becomes a Player, if they have less than 100 macks, all
their mackerel are destroyed and they gain m100.

At the beginning of each nweek, each Active Player gains m25."

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Warrigal
> <ihope127+w@xxxxxxxxx <ihope127%2Bw@xxxxxxxxx><ihope127%2Bw@xxxxxxxxx<ihope127%252Bw@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I withdraw this. I submit the following Consultation, with ehird as
> > the unbeliever: {There is a Player that is not a Bum.}
>
>
> aight.
>  _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>



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