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

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Warrigal's macks are no less affected by the rules as written than ehird's.

There is no rule that says they can be destroyed (and unlike Agora,
this isn't a game where we pretend the rules say what they probably
should say - they say what they say, and nothing more). Therefore,
either they can't be destroyed (and the answer is INCONSISTENT) or
they can be destroyed and are - in which case Warrigal's macks, which
also don't have any rules saying they aren't destroyed by ehird's
deregistration, are. The rules say exactly the same thing about the
fate of Warrigal's macks as ehird's; therefore, because they clearly
don't provide for the destruction of Warrigal's macks, they also don't
provide for ehird's macks to be destroyed. To say otherwise and not
argue that Warrigal at least might be a Bum is to be inconsistent.

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