"Cards" is power 2. "Executive Orders" is power 2 and Dive says
"notwithstanding the cards rule" or something like that.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
<p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I think that it is clear that this won't work because 2504, the higher power
> rule states that your action is INEFFECTIVE.
> ----
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>> On Nov 22, 2017, at 2:15 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> 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
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
