Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 11, 2010, at 12:34 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > - A player CAN move an indicated player an indicated number of > positions P on the list in an indicated direction (up or down) > for a charge equal to the sum of the Influence Levels of all > the positions between the indicated player's starting and > ending positions, inclusive. > > [i.e. symmetric costs with the even a move to Crown Prince having a cost] On the other hand, moves around the top of the list would become much more expensive-- 5 -> 10-- no longer possible with just the weekly salary. > (b) If the rules specify a dependent action method for the > officer performing the action, then the Grand Vizier CAN perform > the action using the same dependent action method, indicating > also that e is acting as Vizier. This is mostly equivalent to (a) (dependent actions CAN be performed by announcement when Agora is satisfied), but allows support actions to be performed without a time limit, which might lead to a cute scam... > (c) If a player becomes the Grand Vizier; : > no notices of intent > posted by the previous Vizier, or posted by the new Vizier prior > to becoming Vizier, CAN be used to resolve dependent actions > described in (a) or (b), above. But this removes another potentially cute scam, which would be quite difficult to set up. :( (also, there's no time limit in the case where the previous Vizier gains the position again, and arguably all office-based dependent actions are described in (a) or (b), so the previous Vizier cannot take any such actions ever again, even if e is the officeholder) > Upon an Appeals Judgement overturning a judgement for > containing an inappropriate judicial declaration, the > Appeals Panel SHALL publish a judicial declaration nullifying > the effects of the initial judicial declaration. Such a > nullification is not retroactive. What if the second declaration is CoEd?
