Re: [s-d] [s-b] MoQ Report - Consultations 155-160 Priest Assignments

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Jamie Dallaire
<bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I declare teucer Answer to be Inconsistent. I'd answer this one yes too, but
> with different reasoning. Could it be that you're confusing violations of
> the rules (i.e. crimes) with outright breaking the rules (i.e. impossible)?
> I don't see any other reason you'd go through such tortured logic "for the
> good of the game".

I think the MoM needs to not get potentially penalized every nweek, or
they won't do it.

And yes, the logic is tortured, but I regard it as at least not
contradicted by the rules and thus an acceptable answer. (I believe
that Priests are obligated to answer the question, rather than to say
what the answer ought to be, which is also the underpinning of my
belief in precedent; but I also believe that good Consultations, like
this one, are those for which there isn't an obvious right answer and
either one can be justified, leaving the Priest and anyone weighing in
on consistency to decide which one is in fact true.)

> "The Clock can be turned On or Off by any player as a game action; however,
> doing so is a violation of the rules unless the rules specifically state
> that it isn't."
>
> I could turn on the clock, you could turn on the clock, anyone could turn it
> on or off at anytime. Including the MoM. It's just a violation of the Rules
> at most times. If it turns out it's never -not- a violation of the rules,
> then that does need to be fixed. But it's not a big issue, since we can just
> choose not to prosecute the MoM for this.

Except that either the MoM must, and therefore has an unfulfilled
Obligation, or they can but may not, and no such obligation exists,
meaning that they must, meaning there is an obligation unfulfilled so
they can but may not...

Ergo, it's definitely not the case that it's never not a violation of
the rules. It is, at worst, paradoxical whether it is or not. But the
answer changes to a non-paradoxical one in the same instant that what
would have previously been paradoxically maybe a violation of the
rules occurs, which I believe means that at that instant when the MoM
turns on the clock, e is also allowed to do so.

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