I advised politicians in every echelon. I just CoEd for the ones in the Row-Reduced Echelon to stop the report from self ratifying. I wasn't sure that someone hadn't paid more than me for some of the politicians in higher echelons.
-Aris On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:12 AM Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > Politicians in the Row-Reduced Echelon are worth no balloons. > > > On 2017-12-18 13:48, Aris Merchant wrote: > > H. Clork, I believe I am owed several weeks back-balloons. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:44 PM Corona <liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > >>> I sh-CFJ "Aris has advised every politician in the row reduced > echelon." > >> I judge CFJ 3613 as TRUE. The caller's arguments are sound, and I have > >> gone through the relevant rules and found nothing contradicting that > >> interpretation. It goes without saying that rule 2536 should be fixed. > >> > >> ~Corona > >> > >> ----- > >> Caller's Arguments: > >> > >>> The rule "Taken Under Advisement" states that "A player CAN, by > >>> announcement, spend Favours in a Party to gain Influence over that > >>> Politican, depending on the Politician's Echelon". It does not state > >>> clearly that the party must be the same as that of the politician. It > >>> does say "that politician", but it is unclear what "that" means in > >>> this context, and there is certainly no textual basis for assuming > >>> that it means they must be of the same party. Further, the rule states > >>> that the process depends on "depend[s] on the Politician's Echelon", > >>> implying via expressio unius est exclusio alterius that it doesn't > >>> depend on anything else. In short, there is no textual basis for > >>> limiting the action to politicians of the same party as the favors. It > >>> would be reasonable to say that the action fails because its > >>> definition is ambiguous, but this is against the principle that the > >>> statements of the rules must be given effect, insofar as it is > >>> possible. > >> > >> Caller's Evidence (Caller's actions preceding CFJ): > >> > >> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > >>> I spend 24 NPR favors to gain 16 influence over Mad Cap'n Tom. I advise > >> em. > >>> I spend 10 NPR favors to gain 10 influence over Politician > >>> McPoliticianface. I advise em. > >>> > >>> I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Mickey Joker. I advise > >>> em. I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Nick P. Ronald. I > >>> advise em. > >>> > >>> > >>> Now for the questionable stuff. > >>> > >>> For each upper echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 5 > >>> NPR favors to gain 5 influence over em, then advise em. > >>> > >>> For each row echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 4 NPR > >>> favors to gain 6 influence over em, then advise em. > >>> > >>> For each row reduced politician, I spend 2 NPR favors to gain 4 > >>> influence over em, then advise em. > > >
