Re: [s-d] [s-b] Reassignment

[Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:27 AM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
> > From: ais523@xxxxxxxxxx
> > To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:08:19 +0000
> > Subject: Re: [s-b] Reassignment
> >
> > On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 13:25 -0800, Jay Campbell wrote:
> > > Ed Murphy wrote:
> > > > I assign Consultation 203 to Priest j.
> > >
> > > I answer YES, Rule 5e57 still exists.
> > >
> > > Per the Contract, "ais523 may modify this contract by appending the
> > > following text to rule 5e47, then repealing rule 5e57".
> > >
> > > This is not grant any abilities to modify the ruleset, and should be
> > > parsed as, "ais523 may modify this contract after successfully becoming
> > > a dictator through other means."
> >
> > I claim this INCONSISTENT; and I will continue to do so unless a judge
> > answering YES explains why the scam didn't trigger the part of rule 5e10
> > that defines game actions. The contract didn't grant me any abilities.
> > Rule 5e10 granted me the abilities.
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> >
>
> 5E10 says game actions are defined by the rules.
> Your contract is not a rule.
> The interpretation of 5E10 cannot, therefore, apply to your contract.
> 5E54 also states that you must be able to perform the prequisite action and
> requiring it does not make it possible.


But as has been pointed out before, game actions (anything that changes the
game!) include the changes enacted in Tweaks, Proposals, Refresh Proposals,
etc. etc. The specific changes therein are not explicitly listed in the
Rules, but rather in the Tweaks or whatever. So the Rules say: "Tweaks can
change whatever they want", basically. The argument here is that the Rules
were messed up and accidentally said the same thing about Contracts when
used in the specific way ais523 used them.

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