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

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ais523 wrote:

> 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.

As I understand it, the argument for YES is that a rule saying "X may Y
by Z" does not thereby say "X may Z".  Note that, when Z is not defined
by the rules, then 5E57 explicitly designates it as a Thing (even if
it's an abstract piece of contract-defined gamestate that doesn't use
an ownable-object-like metaphor) and allows a contract to create it.

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