No, because e is still interim.
----
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Nov 22, 2017, at 2:21 PM, ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> by the way, does the deputisation end the election I initiated?
>
> On 11/22/2017 2:20 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>> RIP VJ Rada.
>> I support.
>> On 11/22/2017 2:15 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that
>>> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse
>>> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with
>>> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this
>>> scam taken from em.
>>>
>>> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As
>>> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another
>>> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to
>>> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from
>>> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons
>>> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of
>>> existence by proposal.
>>>
>>> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me.
>>> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
>>> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians
>>> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not
>>> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
>>> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law,
>>> which I am also loathe to do.
>>>
>>> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything
>>> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last
>>> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone
>>> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can
>>> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not
>>> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach.
>>>
>>> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS
>>> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160
>>> is as follows:
>>> {{{
>>> A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an
>>> action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an
>>> office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the
>>> office, as long as
>>>
>>> 1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
>>> other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and
>>>
>>> 2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
>>> is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation.
>>>
>>> Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow
>>> special deputisation.
>>>
>>> A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office,
>>> via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true:
>>>
>>> 1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
>>> holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is
>>> fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.
>>>
>>> 2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action
>>> to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant.
>>>
>>> 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned
>>> time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the
>>> deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e
>>> intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the
>>> particular action.
>>>
>>> When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected
>>> office, e becomes the holder of that office.
>>> }}}
>>>
>>> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to
>>> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point
>>> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this
>>> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this
>>> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans.
>>>
>>> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being
>>> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order,
>>> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em
>>> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers
>>> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical
>>> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules
>>> that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a
>>> result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black
>>> Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory.
>>>
>>> Now, the above may seem IMPOSSIBLE, as Rule 2507 says that Black Cards
>>> cannot be issued to players. However, it does not contain a claim of
>>> precedence over other rules in this regard, and Rule 2451 authorizes me to
>>> award any card to any player, using Dive. Given the lack of relevant
>>> precedence claims in either rule, by Rule 1030, the rule with the lowest ID
>>> number prevails. Thus, it is POSSIBLE for me to award a Black Card and the
>>> precedence clause in Rule 2451 makes it LEGAL for me to do so.
>>>
>>> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to Slam the Door on V.J. Rada. As far as I
>>> can tell, this will prevent em from taking actions defined by rules of
>>> power 2 or less, including winning the game by Balloons. I don't think it
>>> affects higher-powered rules, so I am confident e can still vote.
>>>
>>> If V.J. Rada is willing to destroy all of eir Favours rather than use them,
>>> then I will object to and not resolve the above intent, and I will
>>> personally consider the matter closed.
>>>
>>> Proposal: Re-opening the Door (AI=2, pend=shinies)
>>> {{{
>>> Amend Rule "2507" by inserting "unless a proposal terminates this effect
>>> sooner, " after "After the Door is Slammed at a person, ".
>>>
>>> Unless V.J. Rada destroyed all favours e owned at the time of this
>>> proposal's submission, without spending them for any action or game effect:
>>> Destroy all of V.J. Rada's Favour and Balloons. Set all of V.J. Rada's
>>> Influence switches to 0. For each Politician whose Advisor is V.J. Rada,
>>> set eir Advisor to none.
>>>
>>> For every player to whom V.J. Rada has transferred a Favour, or in whose
>>> possession V.J. Rada created a Favour since this proposal was submitted,
>>> unless that player destroyed those Favours without spending them for any
>>> action or game effect:
>>> Destroy all of eir Favour and Balloons. Set all of eir Influence switches
>>> to 0. For each Politician whose Advisor is that player, set eir Advisor to
>>> none.
>>>
>>> Terminate the effect of the Door being Slammed at V.J. Rada.
>>> }}}
>>>
>>> H. Promotor, I request expedited distribution of this proposal so that we
>>> can rescind any punishments as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> -Alexis
>>>
