Re: [s-d] Now that murder has been repealed...

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

That's true, the two rules do conflict. But I do have the obligation to
destroy those macks before I get to vote again, and I didn't have many macks
to be automatically deducted anyway.

BP

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Jamie Dallaire
> > <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Thing is the rule
> >> does not say WHOSE macks the felon can destroy, ergo he is obligated and
> >> able to destroy whatever macks he wants up to the amount of the fine.
> >
> > I don't see where you'd get that "able" from anywhere in the rules,
> > and Rule 4E2 would seem to explicitly make it impossible to destroy
> > something unless another rule allows it.  No rule I can see authorizes
> > anyone to destroy mackerel, and Rule 4E73 was probably influenced by
> > Agora's rules that actually allow the destruction of currency.  In any
> > event, 4E54 and 4E73 conflict; 4E54 says mackerel is deducted for a
> > fine, while 4E73 creates an obligation that's impossible to fulfill.
>
> Err, I could try actually reading 4E73 completely.  You're right, it
> does make you able.  However, whether this means your own macks are
> deducted by 4E54 immediately and then you're obligated to destroy the
> amount of macks you were fined is ambiguous.
>
>
>
> --
> Wooble
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss