Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and the
serial comma is only required in lists, right?
-Aris
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> >
>
