Re: [s-d] Oooops Priests

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Billy Pilgrim wrote:

> Just realized:
> 
>  Automatic Reassignment
> 
> Any Priest, who is not the Oracle and has not answered a Consultation he has
> been assigned to within a Jiffy, ceases to be the Priest for any
> Consultations he is assigned to and loses the Ordained Property. If a Player
> loses the Ordained Property in this manner, he cannot regain the Ordained
> Property until the next nweek.
> 
> 
> The Judgment rule does not state (as far as I can tell) that a Priest ceases
> to be assigned a Consultation when e requests that it be ZOTTED or
> reassigned. Even if it did, the above quoted passage does not say that a
> Priest must have been assigned the consultation continuously for an entire
> Jiffy to lose Ordainment, but rather that it has been assigned to em once,
> period.
> 
> Basically this means that any Priest who has requested reassignment/zotting
> on a Consultation automatically still loses Ordainment / eir other
> consultations after a Jiffy...
> 
> This is obviously a bug, but it definitely affects at least one of our
> Priests. Could be 0x44, I think. Murphy, anyone else???

I interpret "has been assigned to" as "has been continuously assigned
to".

I interpret "reassign the Consultation to a new Priest instead" as
de-assigning the old Priest.  I agree that it only happens when the
Oracle does it, not when the old Priest requests it.

"ZOTTED consultations have no further effect" sets up a conflict
between different clauses of Rule 5E36, which I interpret as being
resolved via the meta-rule of the specific taking precedence over
the general.

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