Craig Daniel on Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:14:55 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] Assignments of Consultations 179-187

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Warrigal <ihope127+w@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Charles Schaefer
> <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Answer: NO.
>> Reasoning: The rules are silent on this matter, so I will legislate from the
>> bench. When a player forfeits, their mackerel cease to exist. The answer to
>> this specific consultation arguably would have been YES if ehird had
>> transferred any mackerel to anyone since the era reset, but I can find no
>> evidence that he did so.
> I claim this to be CONSISTENT. If the rules are silent, the matter has
> to be decided one way or the other.

I submit the following Consultation:

{Were Warrigal's macks destroyed when ehird deregistered?}

Arguments: The rules are silent on the matter, so by Warrigal's
reasoning a YES answer would be entirely consistent. If he chooses to
ZOT this Consultation because it's obvious which answer is correct,
I'd like him to specify which obvious answer he favors. After all, if
it's NO, then the lack of a rule destroying his macks also means
there's nothing in the rules to destroy ehird's, which would make
w1n5t0n's answer illogical. On the other hand, if the answer is an
obvious YES, that would be consistent with w1n5t0n's judgment - after
all, the rules are silent on what happens to a player's mackerel when
another player deregisters, which means it's perfectly reasonable to
legislate from the bench that they have been destroyed.

 - teucer
spoon-business mailing list