[s-b] Too many but thanks anyway

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

>
> 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
>
I ZOT this Consultation for being the third about almost the same thing. If
people really want it going through, I'll allow it next time.

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