On Apr 19, 2017, at 11:55 PM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:29 PM Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca > <mailto:o...@grimoire.ca>> wrote: > > Leaving aside that one budget is not fully determinate, it is definitely the > case that, if Quazie is a player, then this action would make Quazie’s > Expenditure is no less than 225, and may be greater. The current Income Cap > is 100. > > Assuming that Quazie is a player, as Secretary, I declare em Bankrupt, as per > Rule 2462. > > I CFJ (barring Quazie) on the statement "Assuming that Quazie is a player, e > has, within the past week, exceeded the Budget Cap." Arguments: "Allowable" > could mean either "possible" or "permissible". If it's the later, e has not > exceeded the Cap, as the highest permissible value is the highest value e > could not be punished for. Additionally, if the action is ambiguous between > the two (or otherwise ambiguous) then it is insufficiently clear to be valid. > > -Aris Income Cap. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
