Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation assignments

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jamie Dallaire wrote:
>> I Claim this Answer and Oracularity to Consultation 130 to be INCONSISTENT.
>>
>> I agree with the Answer itself. I think the Oracularity would be welcome.
>> But the reasoning (which leads to the Oracularity) is, in my opinion, off
>> the mark.
>>
>> The only Rule which allows for the destruction of socks is 4E68, and then
>> only by the appropriate Laundry Corp. 4E2 explicitly says that Game Objects
>> are not to be destroyed in any manner not called for in the Rules. Since no
>> Rule says that Socks cease to be when their Potential Sockholder quits, I'm
>> forced to disagree with teucer.
>>
>
> It doesn't say that. "A Laundry Corporation is a Corporation which may
> create or destroy socks of its appropriate color." It doesn't say there
> Socks can't be destroyed any other way, except the default from 4e2, so
> the submitted Oracularity would tie things off neatly.

J is correct. 4E68 calls for one kind of sock destruction but does not
deny the possibility of other types - and it didn't occur to me when
writing my reasoning that someone could think the sentence j quoted
meant socks couldn't otherwise be destroyed, or I'd have quoted the
text to show why that seems odd.

> Er, except reading this, we shouldn't append to rule 86 (Platforms) as
> the oracularity specifies. Typo. I find this INCONSISTENT too.

Ick, my bad. As I can't amend my Oracularity for typo-fixing after the
fact, I encourage an inconsistent ruling so another judge can put the
needed Oracularity in the correct non-transposed position.

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