Re: [s-b] MoQ Report - Consultations 155-160 Priest Assignments

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

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> *Consultation 155:*
>>
>> Supplicant: ehird
>>
>> Question: Did Jay violate the rules by turning the clock on in the
>> above-quoted message?
>>
>> [[the above-quoted message, from j, said: "I turn the clock on."]]
>> [[Supplicant, please use the Unbeliever mechanism. Had I assigned this
>> Consultation immediately after you submitted it, it would have gone to the
>> only eligible Priest: j. It may yet...]]
>>
>> Reasoning: there were unfilled ministerial obligations and outdated PDs.
>> We need updated reports to play this game. The pragmatic clock is just to
>> avoid clock crises. I recommend a very short Jail time or a minimal mack
>> fine, as this is the first offense.
>
>
> This is Consultation 155. I assign it to Priest comex.
>

I assign this Consultation (155) to Priest comex again. Successfully, this
time.

>
>
>>
>> *Consultation 156:*
>>
>> Supplicant: Billy Pilgrim
>>
>> Question: At the time of this Consultation's submission, is it currently
>> nday 2?
>>
>> Unbeliever: j
>>
>> Reasoning: j attempted to turn on the clock when nweek 152 first started,
>> and turned it off the next day. If he succeeded, then it should by now be
>> nday 3 (the clock having been turned on for real nyesterday). If not, it's
>> nday 2. He may not have succeeded because the rule defining Ministries was
>> missing its proper text. But some have argued that Ministries were at the
>> time defined implicitly, each in their own rule.
>
>
> This is Consultation 156. I assign it to Priest Ty-Guy6.
>

I assign this Consultation (156) to Priest Ivan Hope (aka Warrigal).

>
>
>
>>
>>
>> *Consultation 157:*
>>
>> Supplicant: Warrigal/Ivan Hope
>>
>> Question: There is a Player that is not a Bum.
>>
>> [[Priest: please note that a) this is to be read as "is There is a Player
>> that is not a Bum true?" and b) the platonically correct Answer (if there is
>> one) to this answer may highly depend on whether or not certain Public
>> Displays have been approved to define ownership in Rule 5E2 and to ensure
>> that Players each have m100.]]
>>
>> Gratuitous Argument from Ty-Guy6:
>> {
>> 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."
>> }
>>
>
> This is Consultation 157. I assign it to Priest Ty-Guy6. Oh the suspense...
>
>

I assign this Consultation (157) to Priest ehird.

>
>
>> *Consultation 158:*
>>
>> Supplicant: Geoffrey Spear ("wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx")
>>
>> Question: Did JamesB violate Rule 5E38 by posting commercial spam to the
>> Public Forum in the above-quoted message and elsewhere?
>>
>> [[the above-quoted message said: "Are you a PC?  Upload your PC story and
>> show the world http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/122465942/direct/01/";]]
>>
>> Unbeliever: JamesB
>>
>> Gratuitous Arguments from ehird: "no, because it was not the meaning of
>> spam as in bulk or excess mail that we use."
>
>
> This is Consultation 158. I assign it to Priest Charles.
>

I assign this Consultation (158) to Priest Ivan Hope (aka Warrigal).

>
>
>>
>> *Consultation 159:*
>>
>> Supplicant: ehird
>>
>> Question: Is the answer to this consultation NO?
>>
>> [[I am highly tempted to ZOT this Consultation as irrelevant. However, I
>> am curious to see how it is handled. The Priest is free to ask that I ZOT or
>> reassign it, if e so desires.]]
>
>
> This is Consultation 159. I assign it to Priest Charles.
>

I assign this Consultation (159) to Priest Murphy.

>
>
>>
>> *Consultation 160:*
>>
>> Supplicant: Sgeo
>>
>> Question: Is the MoM ever allowed to turn the Clock On?
>>
>> Reasoning: When there are no unfulfilled Ministerial obligations, the MoM
>> is obligated to turn the Clock On. However, when the MoM is so obligated,
>> there exists an unfulfilled Ministerial obligation,preventing the MoM from
>> turning the Clock On. But then, there exists no such obligation, etc.
>
>
> This is Consultation 160. I assign it to Priest j.


I assign this Consultation to Priest comex.

>
>
> MoQ Billy Pilgrim
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business