Re: [s-b] Ministry Claims

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Gabriel Vistica <gvistica@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I claim the following Ministries: Ministries, Default, Oracle, and Change.
>
> I submit the following CFI:
> {
>     In an nweek that the Minister of Default performs the duties of a vacant
> Ministry, the Minister of Default shall be given the reward that would have been
> given to that Minister, if the vacant Ministry wasn't vacant.
> }
>
> This is CFI 130. I assign CFI 130 to Judge teucer.

Well, I'm of the opinion that e certainly SHOULD, but that wasn't the question.

Rule 27 states that "At the end of the nweek, a player that held a
ministry since the beginning of the nweek and performed all actions
required of that ministry shall be given a number of points equal to
that ministry's reward value." This only gives the Minister of Default
such a reward if the Minister of Default is considered to hold the
ministry.

A ministry can be imposed by being "described as such" (27 again); to
my mind this does not require us to find the word "imposed" in the
rule text; rather, a description of it being imposed on the person is
sufficient. Because "shall" in the context of rule 30 is defined by
rule 14 as making it MANDATORY, this seems to impose the *duties* of
ministries on the Minister of Default, thereby making rule 30 clearly
describe many Ministers' duties being potentially imposed on the
Minister of Default. Whether this imposes the actual ministries
themselves on em is less than clear.

My own inclination is to answer no, thereby rendering a judgement of
FALSE on the grounds that the Minister of Default is never owed
payment for other ministries e fills by default, and I would be in
favor of amending the rules to make this not the case. However, an
argument can certainly be made that the imposition of a ministry's
duties is itself an imposition of that ministry and carries that
ministry's reward in the rules as they currently stand.

I will leave the decision of that question to a later Judge, however,
and hope that my comments herein offer pointers to the relevant
legislation sufficient to ease their burden. (Should that later Judge
be me, I'll look forward to gratuitous arguments before making up my
mind.) I bow out of answering this part because, in the CFI as
written, I take "in an nweek" to mean "in any nweek" rather than "in
some hypothetically possible nweeks." The ministry must be imposed for
the duration of the entire nweek for the argument for a TRUE judgement
to lead to the Minister of Default receiving these rewards; if the
ministry is vacant only some of the time, the Minister of Default is
not eligible for them under either interpretation of ministerial
imposition. FALSE in the general case, but with the recognition that
in some specific instances things might work differently.

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