Re: [s-b] Squaring, part deux.

[comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Jamie Dallaire
<bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I submit a Consultation, with ehird as the Unbeliever: "Did Warrigal
>>> have at least m10000 when this Consultation was submitted?"
> I assign it to Priest comex.

"Laws can define things which a Resident on them shall or shall not
do, and can also define abstract entities that exist only within the
scope of the Laws, and define what Residents on them can or cannot do
with them."

There are two possible interpretations of this clause:
a. Laws can define how Residents can modify the entities. ("do with
it" = "do to it")
b. Laws can, more generally, define that Residents can do things with
the entities, including modifying them. ("do with it" = "do using it")

I find that this is unclear-- a. was probably intended, but if the
Laser Printer were specified in the Rules, nobody would object to
saying that you can award macks 'with' the Laser Printer any more than
saying that you can stab people 'with' a Rapier.  Therefore, the Rule
is reasonably interpreted as allowing Laws to do either-- they can
describe how Things (so I will call them) can be modified, how they
can be used to modify other things, or both.

The only other reason Warrigal might not have m10,000 is that he never
explicitly consented to modifying the Laws, etc; he merely intended,
with Teucer's consent, to do so, then Teucer consented and did so.
However, I find that intending with consent to do something involves
implicit consent.  As a corroborating data point, in Agora, if you
intend to do something with Support, a supporter generally can go
ahead and do it for you without you having to explicitly consent.

Therefore I answer YES, although e no longer has that many macks due
to my and Sgeo's counter-scam.
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business