Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Bloody Vikings

Rule 2.5 says “As a daily action, a Staff Member may add one kind of edible ingredient to the end of the Ingredient List.”

I believe this means that the ingredients of “Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Baked Beans, and Spam”, “Spam, Bacon and Spam” and “Spam, Eggs and Spam”.are all illegal, as they are not “one kind of edible ingredient”, but two.

I’ve gone ahead and removed them - if anyone disagrees and believes the ingredients to have been legal, feel free to revert me and raise a CfJ.

Comments

Darknight:

01-20-2009 20:29:42 UTC

Makes sense Kev.

arthexis:

01-20-2009 20:34:03 UTC

Does this imply that the Cesna 150 is not an ingredient either? I mean, someone ate it, but not as a whole, rather in pieces. So each piece of the Cesna is an Ingredient but it as a whole is not…

arthexis:

01-20-2009 20:35:05 UTC

Anyways, would anyone mind if I modify the recipe too, in order to make it legal?

Darknight:

01-20-2009 20:35:23 UTC

Well ya eat steak in pieces or ya’ll choke lol

Darknight:

01-20-2009 20:35:56 UTC

And I won’t stop ya Art

Amnistar:

01-20-2009 20:43:26 UTC

I’m showing Edible as:

Anything edible; Something that can be eaten without harm, non-toxic to humans; suitable for consumption


Which means there are a few items that would have to be removed from the list on that grounds of something that is toxic to humans. such as the rocket fuel.

Darknight:

01-20-2009 20:46:43 UTC

Lol good point, though my item can stay cause, after all, some people do eat other people. I’m well taught in culture.

Rodlen:

01-20-2009 20:46:46 UTC

Michel Lotito found the Cessna 150 edible.

Rodlen:

01-20-2009 20:47:31 UTC

And the fugu is toxic to humans, but still edible.

Rodlen:

01-20-2009 20:49:41 UTC

Heck, the toxin is what appeals to people in fugu’s case.

Amnistar:

01-20-2009 21:26:03 UTC

I’m just saying, perhaps we should either just ignore the bit about limitations for ingredients, or put in a full definition for edible.

Yoda:

01-20-2009 21:37:54 UTC

I would argue that because edible is not explicitly limited that we can ignore it much like we ignored the “lexical category” in the BLO ruleset.

Rodlen:

01-20-2009 23:48:39 UTC

“Non-toxic to humans” is one of those parts of the definition which doesn’t really count as true, as there are multiple toxic things that are edible.

Amnistar:

01-20-2009 23:52:56 UTC

We’re looking at the difference then between edible and consumable.

Rodlen:

01-21-2009 00:02:59 UTC

Fugu is edible and toxic, for example.  Rocket fuel is inedible and toxic, though.

Gnauga:

01-21-2009 00:09:24 UTC

Rocket fuel contains lots of energy, however. It’s like ultraviolet bull.

Qwazukee:

01-21-2009 01:46:03 UTC

According to Amnistar’s definition, I don’t think anything can be edible and toxic. The two concepts contradict. But then, that’s only one definition of edible.

Rodlen:

01-21-2009 02:19:08 UTC

Fugu is very edible and is eaten FOR THE FREAKING TOXIN.  They say the tingling is nice.

Rodlen:

01-21-2009 02:33:35 UTC

So, basically, definitions often have a few problems.

Amnistar:

01-21-2009 16:45:55 UTC

Maybe then we should use edible as “Can be digested”?

Qwazukee:

01-21-2009 21:56:35 UTC

I don’t know, some people can digest weird things.

Yoda:

01-21-2009 22:40:39 UTC

I say we just ignore the edible limit as long as we can justify our addition somehow (like on the Cessna).