On Jun 13, 2017 1:48 PM, "Quazie" <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:22 AM grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 13, 2017 12:52 PM, "Kerim Aydin" <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > > Forgive me if I'm wrong but: since agencies cause the President of the > agency to perform > > the action, the person doesn't perform the action but rather the > President. So person > > acting through an agency might compel a player to perform a SHALL NOT, > but that action > > would be impossible, prevented, and punished via No Fakers, right? > > That's 100% correct for Agency actions specifically. > > But the broader argument is: > > 1. I, G., have used an Agency while a non-player (Quazie's agency). > > 2. Therefore, in a broad sense I am "playing" the game even if my > Citizenship > is Unregistered. > > 3. Therefore, I am somehow "bound" by the rules with my consent (consent > evidenced by my using the Agency therefore "making moves" therefore > "playing"). > > 4. Therefore I can be penalized for doing wrong things (not > President/Agency > stuff specifically, but if I break other rules in general). > > I think the old rules allowed this by being a bit murky on what "playing > the > game" meant. Now, the R869 language specifically defining > player=registered > citizenship makes the above case a bit harder to justify... I could be > wrong > though... > > > Sure. I think R869 makes a pretty good case (esp if C1709 predates it). > But almost more importantly, what punishment can you even impose on a > non-player through the ruleset? Curiously, a player can assign a Card > through announcement to any person (2426), but the Referee appears to only > be able to assign cards to players in an official capacity (2428). > Similarly, players can only Point a Finger at other players (2427). > > I guess you could assign cards to non-players acting in bad faith through > an agency without punishing the Director, in theory. Which could easily act > as a control for non-players using agencies to do the things. But I don't > think that necessarily makes you a player unless R869 predates C1709, in > which case hmm. > > Also I was kind of under the impression that forming an agency inherently > granted consent to perform actions on your behalf. But maybe that's just me. > If the agents of an agency are none, then i certainly don't consent to people doing things for me (thought thats the only case i can immediately come up with that disagrees with your conjecture) More accurately, forming an agency inherently grants consent to perform actions on your behalf to a set including all people who are listed as agents.
