Craig Daniel on Sun, 4 Jan 2009 18:59:07 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-b] [s-d] Ehirds macks...

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 17:09 +0000, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> On 4 Jan 2009, at 16:57, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > "Nobody" is pretty surely not a game object, is it? If it is, then
>> > True
>> > and False are game objects by the same reasoning, and I'm not sure
>> > that
>> > makes sense.
>> Regardless: No text in any Rule shall be interpreted as a specific
>> Player's name, unless that rule explicitly states that said text
>> shall be interpreted as a specific Player's name.
> That makes such an interpretation illegal, not impossible. So as far as
> I can tell, such an interpretation is quite possibly correct, just
> nobody's allowed to admit it.

More relevantly, we're not allowed to interpret things thus. I submit
a Consultation:
{Question: Did Nobody violate the rules by illegally interpreting a
rule as referring to eir name?
Unbeliever: Nobody
Arguments: Eir statement "Come to me, pretty shiny macks..." clearly
indicates a belief that e would own any unowned ownable game objects.}

 - teucer
spoon-business mailing list