Re: [s-d] [s-b] Excuse Me?!

[Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Elliott Hird <
penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> On 20 Jan 2009, at 18:09, M P Darke wrote:
>
>  Really? What about the Trophy "A gleaming steel Rapier" (I believe, I've
>> got parental controls on my laptop, and b.nomic.net is currently blocked)
>> and the Weapon Rapier?
>>
>
> >>> "a gleaming steel Rapier" == "Rapier"
> False


Indeed, but Marr does raise a good point. What about "Rapier" and "Rapier"?
Let's say, one owned by teucer and one owned by comex. Would this Rule mean
that once one Player owns a Rapier, no one else can buy one?

But wait, I can't actually see any Rule that says that. Could anyone point
me to where the names or titles of game objects have to be unique?

The only remotely close part that I managed to find was Rule 57, which a)
defers precedence to most other rules anyway, because of its number and b)
only says that Things (the ones created by Contracts) can't be created that
have the same title as existing game objects. Which is probably a good
thing, so that I can't create a "Clock", mess with it, and then argue that I
messed with the real Clock (I think that would fail, but an argument could
probably be made for it working).

>
>
>  I submit a consultation:
>> Can there be two game objects with the same title?
>> Unbeliever: ehird
>> Barred: Marr965 (This is me, by the way, and I bar myself from answering
>> it on the grounds that I will be biased.)
>>
>
> You cannot judge your own consultation regardless.


Nope. The Supplicant (you) is automatically barred, and "barred" (which
isn't really in the rules) and "Unbeliever" are the same. You can only bar
one person. (Unless the MoQ agrees by courtesy to bar people...)

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