Sean Hunt wrote:
> Now that I am an inactive player, I am ineligible to own The Pier. As
> such, according to R2166, it would be transferred to the LFD, but R2166
> contradicts itself directly by stating that fixed assets cannot be
> There is no way to properly resolve this; R217 says that
> the text of the rules take precedence over everything else. As a result,
> any attempted application of common sense, game custom, etc. will always
> be defeated one of the rule's contradictory clauses. As a result, the
> only appropriate judgment is UNDECIDABLE.
Nice try, but R217 actually says this:
Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,
past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the
game.
In particular, "the text is ... inconsistent" here. Therefore we are
fully justified in using CSJI* to determine precedence.
At any rate, you seem to have overlooked the following sentence from R2166:
If an asset would otherwise
lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department.
I argue that it is in the best interests of the game for this to mean
that, upon your inactivation, The Pier became owned by the L&FD by
another mechanism than transference.
I've always said you're a friend without pier. (One bad pun begets another.)
(* This really needs an acronym, considering how much it comes up and
how verbose it is in full. CSJI: custom, sense, judgements, interests.)
H. CotC, please enter this message (except for the pun) as gratuitous
arguments.
