Re: [s-b] [s-d] [CotC] CFJ 6 assigned to Judge Goethe

[Kerim Aydin <kerim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

C-walker wrote:
> Just to clarify for Judge  Goethe, this is almost certainly FALSE.

Thanks for the clarification, all.  The answer could actually be slightly
different in Agoran law; I've checked the exact wording of the current
B Nomic rules to see whether the current Agora-like rules without all
the Agoran baggage of precedents would still suggests an Agoran-like 
decision; I don't think that's out of the question.

Judgement

On one hand, it's possible to decide that B-Nomic somehow recognizes an 
objective reality in which the statement is pretty obviously false (I'll 
take that as a given that the person in question does not "own" the 
object in question in any sense that a non-nomic player would recognize).  
It's also possible to find false in that, if the legal fiction of 
ownership were true in a previous round of B, it was taken away.  

However, the current ruleset contains a third option, in that the courts
do not purport to judge one way or the other on relationships between
entities outside the rules which have no effect on the conduct of play 
or the "game state".  The current ruleset does not purport to regulate 
the ownership of real-life things, nor does the ownership of the item 
in question have any bearing on the rules or play at the moment.  
Therefore, the correct decision is IRRELEVANT. 

Judge' Evidence

Tiger wrote:
>>> Right before the Agoran ruleset was adopted, a rule was created that
>>> alowed players to claim things that were not game objects (or however
>>> it was phrased). C-waker immediately went on to claim Barrack Obama
>>> and eir fellow player's brains, among other things. So it's
>>> essentially a question about whether gamestate carries over when it's
>>> no longer recognised by the rules.

Wooble wrote:
>> Gratuitous arguments: under the old ruleset, anything in the game was
>> a game object.  Thus, if claims were in the game, they were game
>> objects and destroyed by the Refresh Proposal which explicitly
>> destroyed all game objects except for itself.  If they weren't game
>> objects, they weren't part of the gamestate so in the absence of rules
>> making them part of the gamestate in the new ruleset, they're not part
>> of the gamestate.

-Goethe


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