The problem is, "a player or a person" doesn't make terribly much sense in
that light. All players are by definition people.
-Aris
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:44 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> >
>>
>
