On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 7:24 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope these are remotely meritorious. I remember some controversy about > whether > the overhaul rule violated 217, I don't agree that it does but I wish to > put it to rest. > > I call a CFJ on "The rule change purporting to enact a rule entitled > Economics > Overhaul 2.0 is "wholly void and without effect" under rule 217, which > prohibits any > rule that would "prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve > matters > of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the controversy will > thereby be > resolved" > > The new rule creates an obligation to pay 1 ap or some amount of shinies > to pend > any CFJ. While we know that a reasonable limit on how many CFJs may be > called > is legal (I think?), we're not sure if stopping anyone bereft of Shinies > or APs is legal > especially if APs and Shinies are also needed to do other game actions. > First, I'd suggest using AP or shinies to call these to ensure they're successful. Secondly, you're excluding a third option. Any person who is not a player can call a CFJ. That means that, regardless of how much AP or how many shinies you have, it's always possible to call a CFJ. There should be no violation of R217. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > I call a CFJ on "A player that announces intent to perform an action > without N > objections does not need to wait four days before performing it" > > The operable text is "If the action is to be performed *With N Objections*, > With N > Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 > days earlier." > > "With N objections" is meant to say "Without N objections" but there is no > time > period enumerated for performing an action without N objections. I guess a > time > period should be read in as a matter of common law (to stop people from > ratifying > themselves winners instantly) but still. >
