Alex Smith on Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:31:03 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [s-b] [s-d] Assignments of Consultations 179-187 |
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 15:58 +0000, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 2 Jan 2009, at 15:42, James Baxter wrote: > > > The Rules do not state that they are destroyed but I think that it > > is right that since they are not being owned by a Legal Entity > > (which they must be) they cannot exist and must be destroyed. > > Must be destroyed? Where? Where? Where is this in the rules? > > > I don't see why it matter as rejoining will create a new player > > with m100 and the old macks will never be seen again. > > The properties can be Consulted on -- I believe some are paradoxical. > > > Preists are allowed to make rulings like "A Player's mack are > > destroyed when they Forfeit" and this consultation will be made > > influential by default when it has been pondered. > > Great! Now we have Agora: "let the oldbies snidely reference > consultations of years ago because > god forbid the rules of the game be contained in the rules". It was you who repealed Oracularities! This seems the most obvious alternative. I initiate a consultation on the question "Is it true that consultations have the power to affect the gamestate, once they have been Pondered?", with unbeliever Murphy [because he's too sane to give the answer I want]. I hope this is Consistently ruled Yes. -- ais523 _______________________________________________ spoon-business mailing list spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business