(N.B. Detailed explanation as to why this works follows, so as you've
probably guessed, it's a scam. I think this works, but as always with
scams, please check for yourself before relying on the success of
actions in this message, I wouldn't want to mislead people into thinking
my scams are always perfect.)
According to rule 2156:
{{{
The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities
that were active players at the start of its voting period. The
voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir
caste at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded
up) if the voter was in the chokey at that time.
}}}
Rule 2156 defines the voting limit on ordinary decisions for eligible
voters on ordinary decisions; that is, the active players. It does not
define the VLOD for ineligible voters. (This makes intuitive sense, as
they cannot vote.)
Rule 2125 lists the circumstances under which an action is regulated.
Changing the VLOD of an active player (i.e. an eligible voter on an
ordinary decision) is clearly regulated, as VLOD = Caste in such cases,
and changes to Caste are not only recordkeepor information, but also
secured. However, again, nothing in the rules sets a value of VLOD for
ineligible voters, nor is there any definition given for it. As a
result, changes to VLOD for players without a rules-defined VLOD are
therefore unregulated. (Again, not particularly surprising for something
that has no effect on proposals.) In other words, it is possible, by
rule 101(i), to change an inactive player's VLOD. (Rule 101 grants the
right but not necessarily the ability; however, there is no logical
reason why I would not have the ability, as nothing in the rules secures
or regulates VLOD for inactive players.)
Therefore, where VLOD means "voting limit on ordinary decisions":
I set the VLOD of arkestra to -100.
I set the VLOD of avpx to -100.
I set the VLOD of cctoide to -100.
I set the VLOD of cdm014 to -100.
I set the VLOD of Doopy to -100.
I set the VLOD of Olipro to -100.
I set the VLOD of Quazie to -100.
I set the VLOD of Schrodinger's Cat to -100.
I set the VLOD of The Left Hand to -100.
I set the VLOD of the Pineapple Partnership to -100.
Rule 2134 states:
{{{
Upon a win announcement that a specified player's voting limit
on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the
combined voting limits of all other players on that decision,
the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.
}}}
Note that rule 2134 specifies the "combined voting limits of all other
players"; there is no restriction to active players mentioned. Therefore
if an ordinary decision was initiated right now, each inactive player
would have a voting limit on that decision of -100. (Of course, such
players would be ineligible voters, thus their voting limit would be
irrelevant.)
The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves
to clearly label it as one. If an ordinary decision were initiated at
the time of this announcement, then ais523's voting limit on that
decision would exceed the combined voting limits of all other players on
that decision.
As proof of that statement, observe that the total Caste of all players
is (according to Murphy's website) 66; the active players have a VLOD of
no more than their Caste, and the inactive players have a VLOD of -100,
thus the total VLOD (excluding me) is clearly negative. On the other
hand, I have a VLOD of 3, which is positive, and so greater than the
combined VLOD of all other players.
Therefore, I Win by Clout.
As usual with a scam of this nature, I call for judgement on the
statement "In the message which contains this statement, ais523 won by
Clout", and submit this message as evidence on the resulting CFJ.
--
ais523
