You are a player. Read it again. Also, sorry for the links.
-Aris
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> 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
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>
