On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I object, as Murphy's arguments and my response point out that this is
> unreasonable.
Which arguments? root clarified that the most recent time that this
was defined was not February 2008 but December 2007. Indeed, a
"Democratic proposal" has not been defined for a year... but the
concept has been defined in some form or another as far back as 1996,
only a few years after Agora's formation [1].
Rule 754 applies only if an ambiguity in meaning is created: such an
ambiguity was created here. Sure, Murphy and root obviously intended
to make the decisions to adopt the proposals Democratic, not the
proposals themselves, but Agora is not in the habit of interpreting
messages to mean what the sender meant. In fact, quite the opposite--
setting power of a proposal, I register as a watcher... if a person
words his message substantially incorrectly, there is a strong
precedent that it's ineffective. I argue that confusing a proposal
with the Agoran decision to adopt a proposal, when the action
attempted thereby becomes ambiguous, is substantially incorrect.
Anyway, Warrigal was originally involved in the creation of this scam;
I suggest the case be REASSIGNED due to a conflict of interest.
[1] The earliest reference I can find to a "Democratic proposal":
Rule 1680/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
The Power of Democracy
There is a Power called the Power of Democracy. It can be cast
on any one Proposal, specified by the Caster, and called the
Democratic Proposal. The effect of the Power of Democracy is to
limit the Votes cast on the Democratic Proposal.
The Card of the Power of Democracy is in Limbo for ten days
after it is cast. The price of the Democracy Card is 30 Mil.
The Caster can only cast the Power of Democracy by sending a
message to the Assessor unambiguously identifying the Proposal
which is to be the Democratic Proposal, otherwise the Power is
not legally cast.
The Votes cast on a Democratic Proposal are limited in the
following manner: The Assessor shall only record one Vote from
each non-Immune Active Player who chooses to Vote. Extra Votes
cast by any Entity other than an Immune Player, and Votes from
non-Player entities are not counted in determining the results
of a Vote on a Democratic Proposal.
If an entity other than an Immune Player has already cast Extra
Votes on the Democratic Proposal at the time it became
Democratic, then these Extra Votes are without effect on the
Democratic Proposal, and their Limbo Period ends immediately
without their being transferred to the Bank.
Players who are Immune are not bound by the limitations set by
this Rule as long as any Extra Votes they cast were done so
during the duration of their Immunity.
If the casting of this Power conflicts with the casting of any
Power other than the Powers of Immunity and Neutralize, the
Power of Democracy takes precedence, the other Power is
nullified and has no effect. If another Power is nullified
because of the precedence of the Democracy Card, the cost of the
nullified Power is transferred to the Player who cast it. This
transfer occurs at the end of the Voting Period for the
Democratic Proposal. The Assessor is responsible for detecting
and reporting these transfers.
This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which describe the
circumstances in which Players may legally cast Extra Votes,
over Rules which describe the effects of legally cast Extra
Votes on Proposals, and over Rules describing what Entities are
permitted to cast Votes on Proposals in general.
If this Rule conflicts in its effects with those of another
Rule defining a specific Power, then the conflict shall be
resolved according to the Rule for determining precedence
among Powers.
History:
Created by Proposal 2780 (Swann), Dec. 27 1996
