ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 21:32 +0100, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
wrote:
I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by
saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder
that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also
note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a
duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029
*does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and
CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not
100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal
effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I
wouldn't expect 4st to know about them.
Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something
along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not
an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago
at this point).
Just happened to notice this:
On Tue, 2023-05-16 at 15:21 -0500, nix via agora-official wrote:
Marvy: 4st, ais523, CreateSource,
cuddlybanana, duck, G., Janet,
juan, Murphy, R. Lee, snail,
Trigon, Vitor Gonçalves
Marvy is a patent title that's currently in use. I suspect that this
has no impact on rule 2029 for much the same reason that a player named
"Marvy" wouldn't, but it feels like a relevant data point.
IIRC, that Patent Title was awarded by proposal, then after its adoption
the author claimed that R2029 penalized those players, but it was indeed
shot down for much the same reason as a player named "Marvy" would have.
