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

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 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.

The question of who owns them is an entirely separate Consultation for
a reason. This Consultation only addresses whether they can be
destroyed without a rule that lets that happen - and I'm assuming all
of you guys that say they can will rule similarly if asked to judge
the question of Warrigal's macks, which also don't have a rule that
lets them 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.

They will only be destroyed if Muffinbottom MacQuitterkin somehow
still owns them. The rules provide a mechanism for it. But that
mechanism *hasn't happened yet*, so invoking it to try to say they're
already gone is silly.

As for why it matters: I revise my proposal to bring ehird back so
that it reads as follows: {The Human External Force named Elliot Hird,
formerly a player under the name ehird, becomes a player named
Muffinbottom MacQuitterkin and comes to be in possession of all extant
mackerel formerly owned by ehird.}

If the mackerel still exist (which they do), and don't belong to
MacQuitterkin right now (which they can't) and thus getting destroyed,
then shortly after rejoining e'd be a richer man than otherwise. See
the difference? These things can make a significant difference to the
gamestate, which means that saying "this is simpler, so let's pretend
it's what the rules say" actually has different results from doing
what the rules really say to do.

And remember, the same rule that says ehird's macks were destroyed
says the same thing about Warrigal's. And yours. Thank god it doesn't
actually exist.

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