Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: ehird's macks

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ais523 wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 16:31 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Elliott Hird
>>> <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 31 Dec 2008, at 21:05, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
>>>>> We need to learn our lesson and define that when we make new game objects
>>>>> (or explicitly make old things into game objects)...
>>>>>
>>>>> This comes up every few months in a slightly different form.
>>>> Welp, I think the ownership consultation is PARADOX. :)
>>> We need a Rule 1586.
>> Possibly, but what's more directly relevant to this case is this
>> clause from Rule 2162:
>>
>>       If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a
>>       possible value, it comes to have its default value.
> 
> Wrong nomic.

Well, if you'd rather copy Ancient Agora rather than Modern Agora,
you could create a rule along the lines of "if a Game Object's owner
ceases to be eligible to own it, he remains its owner anyway, but
the Ministry of Probate (aka the Repo Man or Barry Darsow) can and
shall transfer it according to the Probate Procedure".

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