[BNomic-Public] Re: [Bnomic-private] Judgement on CFI 977

[Daniel Lepage dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Quoth Joshua Caudle,

> Rule 503 in nweek 22 did not state that a glass must be in a player's
> possesion in order for the player to drink said glass. However, since Rule 636
> has greater Chutzpah a than Rule 503 the glass cannot be in the possession of
> another player. Therefore it is the duty of the administrator to select a
> legal glass for consumption as stated in Rule 25. If no appropiate glasses
> are currently available, Rule 25 would also place the onus of creating said
> glass on the administrator.

But the existance of Champagne is a prerequisite for drinking. The statement
"a player may drink a glass of champagne" is the equivelant of saying that a
player may perform the action "drink" on a "glass of champagne". That does
not mean that you can force the creation of a glass by attempting to drink
one; it means you are allowed to target a glass of Champagne with the action
"drink".

What you're claiming would be the equivalent of saying that because players
can vote Shelve on proposals, if there are no proposals, the administrator
must create a new one if you declare that you're voting Shelve on a
proposal. That's ludicrous. If you announce that you're voting Shelve on a
proposal when there are no proposals, the action will fail because there is
no proposal for you to vote Shelve on. It will not be an *illegal* action -
it isn't banned by the rules. But it will be an *impossible* action, because
there is no way for it to be carried out.

-- 
Wonko