On Monday 19 November 2007, Zefram wrote: > >- However, since Agora cannot literally send a message to the B public > >forum, it might not be able to join in any case. > > R2172 speaks of a player acting on behalf of Agora. That seems an > adequate mechanism, presuming that B Nomic allows for factions that > can't literally send messages themselves. Examining past consultations, while I had thought the Faction rules untested, in fact they have been tested and my point here is irrelevant. http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Consultations/0029 > > > Since this issue > > depends on close inspection of the B rules, IRRELEVANT is appropriate. > > It's not irrelevant on those grounds. There'd be a case for > UNDETERMINED there, but you obviously are familiar with the rules in > question so actually you can determine it perfectly well.
How a foreign nomic interprets our purported (using that word itt) actions is not relevant to this game. Perhaps in this CFJ the mechanism in B Nomic for accepting factions is fairly clear-cut, but what if it were a hotly debated topic under consultation? There is no reason to bring it to the Agoran courts. I claim that the precedent from CFJ 1714 applies here, even though a rule now does attempt to "dictate such matters to a foreign nomic". > >- Goethe's argument about Rule 101 (v) is irrelevant, because in B, > >becoming a Faction, unlike becoming a Player, does not require agreeing > > to be bound by the Rules. > > Interesting distinction. What do Factions do? They collect votes. Players can give allegiance to a Faction to set their vote power to 0 for that week, and permanently increase that Faction's vote power by 1 (although it decays by 1/4 each week). Therefore the vote power of a Faction can be more than the combined vote powers of those who gave allegiance to it.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
