Re: [s-d] [s-b] Assignments of Consultations 179-187

["Charles Schaefer" <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx>]

2008/12/31, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Charles Schaefer wrote:
>
>> 2008/12/31, Warrigal ihope127+w@xxxxxxxxx <ihope127%2Bw@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>
>>> Consultation 184:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ehird wants to know what happened to eir mackerel. I think they're
>>>> gone, but the rules don't make this happen explicitly, so why not use
>>>> the judgment system to find out? I submit the following Consultation:
>>>>
>>>> {Are there any Mackerel formerly owned by ehird?}
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The eligible priests are BobTHJ, Tyler, w1n5t0n, 0x44, JamesB, Murphy,
>>> and Billy Pilgrim. My seven-sided die says 3, so I assign Consultation
>>> 184 to w1n5t0n.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Answer: NO.
>> Reasoning: The rules are silent on this matter, so I will legislate from
>> the
>> bench. When a player forfeits, their mackerel cease to exist. The answer
>> to
>> this specific consultation arguably would have been YES if ehird had
>> transferred any mackerel to anyone since the era reset, but I can find no
>> evidence that he did so.
>>
>>
> I claim this INCONSISTENT. Consultations do not have such an effect on game
> state*, they're merely advisory.
>
> * Except for punishments


Consultations have the effect of setting precedent.

Would you rather I phrase it like this:
As Punishment, I assign a Fine of all macks formerly owned by ehird on any
legal entity which possesses them and on B Nomic generally for all unowned
macks. (I obviously can't do that, btw)

-- 
> w1n5t0n aka
> Charles Schaefer
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss