Huh. YMMV, but I personally wouldn't consider it rude, especially if you
explained why it was time-sensitive for you (unless you were doing it
every time they were a day late or something). The whole purpose of
requiring Notice is to give a fair warning.
A specific purpose of deputisation, when started, was to make sure Officers
couldn't stop scams simply by delaying things a few days. The delay would be
a rules violation, but for stopping some scams, that's a minor punishment
that the anti-scammers would forgive easily. If we expect "honorable" scams
to avoid rules violations, it's not really fair to let the officers on the
other side violate rules to simply run out the clock.
So in these cases, deputisation is a specific gameplay way to force the
issue (sometimes at the cost of revealing plans early of course!)
Of course, 95% of the time it's a way of quickly filling a missing officer's
job when they've been unresponsive for a while, but the 5% shouldn't be
considered verboten IMO.
On 2/5/2019 1:16 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Yikes.
I've been told in the past that forcibly ousting (non-corrupt) officers without
their consent is considered rude, but if you're willing to wait until the
weekend I can distribute it for you as a one-off, if Aris hasn't already by
then.
-twg
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 5:41 PM, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the proposal
pool.
I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I submitted
today and that was not withdrawn.
(This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be
distributed this week, to reduce the chance that anyone could discover it or
launch a counter-scam. This isn’t meant to be any kind of criticism of the
commendable job done by our H. Promotor. If this inadvertently violates game
norms, then I won’t execute either intent.)
