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

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

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Billy Pilgrim wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> In eir answer to Consultation 162, comex wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> (E later claimed that teucer intended and Warrigal consented, but e was
> right the first time.)
>
> What comex got wrong is that neither Warrigal nor teucer actually
> carried out the intended change.  I declare eir answer inconsistent.


I also declare comex's Answer to Consultation 162 to be Inconsistent.

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