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

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:16:09 +0000
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> From: penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Assignments of Consultations 179-187
> 
> 
> On 2 Jan 2009, at 11:26, James Baxter wrote:
> 
> > I find this CONSISTENT as nothing can be done with the macks and 
> > they are not being legally owned by anyone (they can't even be 
> > owned by Nobody) therfore I find a judgement that they be destroyed 
> > to be right.
> 
> WHAT IS THE RULES BASIS FROM THEM BEING DESTROYED?
> 
> nothing! Nothing!
> 
> This Consultation isn't even Influential! It doesn't make them so, it 
> is merely FALSE!
> 
> The rules do not say they are destroyed. They simply don't. And this 
> consultation can't change that.
> 
> You are all batshit insane and consistent-ing in a simply INCORRECT 
> judgment.
 
The Rules do not state that they are destroyed but I think that it is right that since they are not being owned by a Legal Entity (which they must be) they cannot exist and must be destroyed.
 
I don't see why it matter as rejoining will create a new player with m100 and the old macks will never be seen again.
 
Preists are allowed to make rulings like "A Player's mack are destroyed when they Forfeit" and this consultation will be made influential by default when it has been pondered.
_________________________________________________________________
Get a bird’s eye view of the world with Multimap
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454059/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss