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 >