Re: [s-d] [s-b] Retirement

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

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> > I don't know what the right answer to this Consultation is (I don't think
> > there IS one, really), but I declare that the Answer provided by Priest j
> is
> > INCONSISTENT with established doctrine. I do so because I submit that a
> Sock
> > may not exist without an owner, on the basis that: "There exists an
> > Attribute called "Sockholder" with a Scope of all Socks, a Range of all
> > Potential Sockholders, and a default value of the XXX Corporation, where
> XXX
> > is the color of that sock."
> >
>
> Invalid attribute values don't mean automatic termination of the
> object's existence. If a rule sets my number of points according to
> another metric, and that metric causes the number to go negative, would
> the fact that points are not allowed to go negative destroy my player
> account?


No. What I mean is specifically that the sock still has to be around because
nothing in the ruleset says it has been destroyed. And since there's an
attribute defining ownership which can't possibly say "no owner", it's got
to have an owner somewhere.

So... I think we're actually on the same page. Looking back, I realize that
I took your answer of FALSE to mean the sock had been destroyed, even though
that's not what you were saying. And I didn't let Tyler's correction get in
the way of my misconception...

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