Re: [s-b] Consultations on the Pencil Sharpener

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

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Jamie Dallaire
<bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I submit the following Consultation, naming comex as the unbeliever:
>>
>> {Question: Does teucer have any mackerel?
>>
>> Arguments: if the Pencil Sharpener works as advertised (and I believe
>> it does), then the mackerel it destroyed of mine are, in fact, the
>> entirety of my mackerel. At least, they might be. The sum is enough
>> for this to be the case, but when I bought a rapier I didn't specify
>> whether or not all of the mackerel being spent to buy and use it had
>> been created by the Laser Printer. Nor did Warrigal specify whether
>> the ten he loaned me came from my prior holdings or not.
>>
>> If mackerel are non-fungible (which, as they are distinct game
>> objects, seems reasonable) then none of the various game actions
>> involving them this era worked, since nobody ever specified which
>> mackerel they were destroying and so forth. The Laser Printer would
>> have worked, except that we didn't actually have a color to create it
>> in. Thus, the Pencil Sharpener fails because the mackerel it destroys
>> don't exist. I still have exactly m100 per the PD, as do the four
>> other squared players (comex, ehird, Sgeo, and Warrigal).
>>
>> If mackerel are fungible (which also seems reasonable; they're
>> currency, after all) then the pencil sharpener failed because it
>> failed to specify what quantity of mackerel were being destroyed.
>>
>> By the way, if a specific number of mackerel were to have been
>> specified in this case - or if some strange fluke might inspire the
>> Priest to answer NO on the grounds that the sharpener worked when both
>> interpretations suggest otherwise, also a plausible decision - it's
>> worth noting that it still may not be able to affect me. Laws do not
>> have the force of the Ruleset behind them except on squares of the
>> color where they are the Laws; as the Laws of White cannot oblige me
>> to destroy my macks I remain only mostly convinced they can destroy
>> them directly. But I am mostly convinced, and so would have to judge
>> that a properly-worded Sharpener would have worked if I were assigned
>> to do so.}
>
>
> This is Consultation 163.


I assign it to Priest Murphy.
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business