But you are a player. On 11/22/2017 04:38 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in august. > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM 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 >> >> You're forgetting something. I wrote the black card rule. And I'm paranoid. >> "Any attempt to Slam the Door on a player >> <https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule869> or a person >> <https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule869> whose most recent deregistration >> took place without eir consent <https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2124> is >> INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding." >> >> You're free to award the card, but you can't slam the door. >> >> -Aris > >
-- ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature