Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 195 on Wooble's Playerhood #6?

[Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:25 AM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
> > Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:42:02 -0500
> > From: bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx
> > To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [s-b] Consultation 195 on Wooble's Playerhood #6?
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:14 AM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:39:49 -0700
> > > > From: wisety@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: [s-b] Consultation 195 on Wooble's Playerhood #6?
> > > >
> > > > Consultation 195. I assign to Priest JamesB.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Geoffrey Spear <
> wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > Having received no objections, I activate the above Tweak.
> > > > >
> > > > > I register as a Player, with the unique name Wooble. (If I was
> > > > > already a player, this is ineffective because I'm already a Player.
> > > > > If I was ever a player by the name Rev. Ignoratio Elenchi, KHS,
> this
> > > > > is also ineffective and I'm not currently a Player.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I submit the following Consultation: {{Is Wooble a Player?}}
> > > > > --
> > > > > Wooble
> > >
> > > Answer: NO
> > >
> > > Reasoning: I believe he forfeit on the 30th December. According to the
> > > clock, it was nday 1 of nweek 154 then but,
> > > as we all know, the clock was wrong. I believe it was nweek 153 then so
> he
> > > cannot rejoin until next nweek. This is all
> > > because I think he did become a Player named Rev. Ignoratio Elenchi,
> KHS
> > > before Forfeiting.
> >
> >
> > I claim that this answer is INCONSISTENT.
> >
> > Prior to forfeiting on Dec. 30 (failure, e wasn't a Player), Wooble
> forfeit
> > on Nov. 20. This was early in nweek 152, meaning his attempt to join as
> the
> > Rev. during nweek 153 failed. His most recent attempt to join should
> > therefore have succeeded, in nweek 154.
>
> Ok, I wasn't around in early nweek 152 so I can't have known.


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