I read that as (a player or a person)... not a player or (a person ...).
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:42 VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, sorry, correct.
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>
