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

[Warrigal <ihope127+w@xxxxxxxxx>]

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

For the purposes of this message, "to distim" means "to be destroyed,
cease to be mackerel, or come to be owned by someone else". I find it
likely that you would say the following:

"There is no rule that says they can distim (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 distim (and the answer is INCONSISTENT) or they can distim
and are - in which case Warrigal's macks, which also don't have any
rules saying they don't distim due to 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
distimming of Warrigal's macks, they also don't provide for ehird's
macks to distim. To say otherwise and not argue that Warrigal at least
might be a Bum is to be inconsistent."

The thing is, though, the rules say, "Only Legal Entities can own
mackerel.", which *logically entails* that if something ceases to be a
Legal Entity, something changes such that it is still true that only
Legal Entities own mackerel--in other words, the mackerel they own
distim. If you don't accept this logical consequence of the rules as
being as true as the rules themselves, what logical consequences *do*
you accept?

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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...

Sounds like one of those
what-side-of-the-road-to-go-to-when-there's-a-car-coming questions.
ehird has a car and I don't, though.

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