Oh, sorry, correct. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Aris Merchant <[email protected]> wrote: > You are a player. Read it again. Also, sorry for the links. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in august. >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that >> >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous >> abuse >> >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with >> >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this >> >> scam taken from em. >> >> >> >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. >> As >> >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, >> another >> >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in >> order to >> >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from >> >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing >> balloons >> >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of >> >> existence by proposal. >> >> >> >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me. >> >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue >> >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences >> politicians >> >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees >> not >> >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of >> >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law, >> >> which I am also loathe to do. >> >> >> >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything >> >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last >> >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone >> >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it >> can >> >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does >> not >> >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach. >> >> >> >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS >> >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule >> 2160 >> >> is as follows: >> >> {{{ >> >> A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an >> >> action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an >> >> office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the >> >> office, as long as >> >> >> >> 1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, >> >> other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and >> >> >> >> 2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e >> >> is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. >> >> >> >> Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow >> >> special deputisation. >> >> >> >> A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office, >> >> via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: >> >> >> >> 1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of >> >> holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is >> >> fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. >> >> >> >> 2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action >> >> to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant. >> >> >> >> 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned >> >> time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the >> >> deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e >> >> intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the >> >> particular action. >> >> >> >> When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected >> >> office, e becomes the holder of that office. >> >> }}} >> >> >> >> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to >> >> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I >> Point >> >> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this >> >> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this >> >> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans. >> >> >> >> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being >> >> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order, >> >> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed >> in em >> >> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers >> >> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex >> mechanical >> >> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules >> >> that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win >> as a >> >> result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a >> Black >> >> Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory. >> >> >> >> Now, the above may seem IMPOSSIBLE, as Rule 2507 says that Black Cards >> >> cannot be issued to players. However, it does not contain a claim of >> >> precedence over other rules in this regard, and Rule 2451 authorizes me >> to >> >> award any card to any player, using Dive. Given the lack of relevant >> >> precedence claims in either rule, by Rule 1030, the rule with the >> lowest ID >> >> number prevails. Thus, it is POSSIBLE for me to award a Black Card and >> the >> >> precedence clause in Rule 2451 makes it LEGAL for me to do so. >> >> >> >> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to Slam the Door on V.J. Rada. As far as >> I >> >> can tell, this will prevent em from taking actions defined by rules of >> >> power 2 or less, including winning the game by Balloons. I don't think >> it >> >> affects higher-powered rules, so I am confident e can still vote. >> >> >> >> If V.J. Rada is willing to destroy all of eir Favours rather than use >> them, >> >> then I will object to and not resolve the above intent, and I will >> >> personally consider the matter closed. >> >> >> >> Proposal: Re-opening the Door (AI=2, pend=shinies) >> >> {{{ >> >> Amend Rule "2507" by inserting "unless a proposal terminates this effect >> >> sooner, " after "After the Door is Slammed at a person, ". >> >> >> >> Unless V.J. Rada destroyed all favours e owned at the time of this >> >> proposal's submission, without spending them for any action or game >> effect: >> >> Destroy all of V.J. Rada's Favour and Balloons. Set all of V.J. Rada's >> >> Influence switches to 0. For each Politician whose Advisor is V.J. Rada, >> >> set eir Advisor to none. >> >> >> >> For every player to whom V.J. Rada has transferred a Favour, or in whose >> >> possession V.J. Rada created a Favour since this proposal was submitted, >> >> unless that player destroyed those Favours without spending them for any >> >> action or game effect: >> >> Destroy all of eir Favour and Balloons. Set all of eir Influence >> switches >> >> to 0. For each Politician whose Advisor is that player, set eir Advisor >> to >> >> none. >> >> >> >> Terminate the effect of the Door being Slammed at V.J. Rada. >> >> }}} >> >> >> >> H. Promotor, I request expedited distribution of this proposal so that >> we >> >> can rescind any punishments as soon as possible. >> >> >> >> -Alexis >> > >> > >> > You're forgetting something. I wrote the black card rule. And I'm >> paranoid. >> > "Any attempt to Slam the Door on a player >> > <https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule869> or a person >> > <https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule869> whose most recent >> deregistration >> > took place without eir consent <https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2124> >> is >> > INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding." >> > >> > You're free to award the card, but you can't slam the door. >> > >> > -Aris >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >>
-- >From V.J. Rada
