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

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.


While I agree with teucer that the rules are just as silent on the fate of
ehird's macks as on that of Warrigal's, I do think there is a good bit of
value to Murphy's argument. An intrinsic part of the definition of ehird's
macks is precisely that they are ehird's. When ehird ceased to be a Player,
and could no longer be those macks' owner, then it stands to reason that
*something* happens to those macks. There is no analogous reason to think
that *something* happened to Warrigal's macks.

That said, teucer is quite right to insist that since no appropriate
*something* is defined for what happens to ehird's macks in this situation,
there is no good reason to just arbitrarily select a particular *something*
and decide that it is what happened, anymore than we should select that same
*something* and apply it to Warrigal's macks...

I'm pulling for Paradox with a Proposal than explicitly destroys any mack
formerly owned by ehird, if there is any such mack.

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