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

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

teucer wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Warrigal <ihope127+w@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Charles Schaefer
>> <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 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 to be CONSISTENT. If the rules are silent, the matter has
>> to be decided one way or the other.
> 
> I submit the following Consultation:
> 
> {Were Warrigal's macks destroyed when ehird deregistered?}
> 
> Arguments: The rules are silent on the matter, so by Warrigal's
> reasoning a YES answer would be entirely consistent. If he chooses to
> ZOT this Consultation because it's obvious which answer is correct,
> I'd like him to specify which obvious answer he favors. After all, if
> it's NO, then the lack of a rule destroying his macks also means
> there's nothing in the rules to destroy ehird's, which would make
> w1n5t0n's answer illogical. On the other hand, if the answer is an
> obvious YES, that would be consistent with w1n5t0n's judgment - after
> all, the rules are silent on what happens to a player's mackerel when
> another player deregisters, which means it's perfectly reasonable to
> legislate from the bench that they have been destroyed.

Gratuituous counterargument:  In the case of "what happens to ehird's
mack when ehird forfeits?", ehird's mack suffer a triggering
inconsistency (their former owner ceases to be a valid owner) that
reasonably results in /something/ happening to them:

  1) Their owner changes (to Nobody? to a random player? to the first
     player to yell CREAMPUFF?)

  2) Their owner remains ehird, but they cease to be Game Objects
     because they are no longer consistent with the rules' description
     of Game Objects (specifically their ownership)

  3) Neither; the rules' claim becomes incorrect, and they fail
     to cause a change that maintains their correctness

In the case of "what happens to Warrigal's mack when ehird forfeits?",
Warrigal's mack suffer no such triggering inconsistency.

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