when did you get all these npr favours? are those economic? On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I spend 24 NPR favors to gain 16 influence over Mad Cap'n Tom. I advise em. > > I spend 10 NPR favors to gain 10 influence over Politician > McPoliticianface. I advise em. > > I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Mickey Joker. I advise > em. I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Nick P. Ronald. I > advise em. > > > Now for the questionable stuff. > > For each upper echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 5 > NPR favors to gain 5 influence over em, then advise em. > > For each row echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 4 NPR > favors to gain 6 influence over em, then advise em. > > For each row reduced politician, I spend 2 NPR favors to gain 4 > influence over em, then advise em. > > I sh-CFJ "Aris has advised every politician in the row reduced echelon." > > Arguments: > > The rule "Taken Under Advisement" states that "A player CAN, by > announcement, spend Favours in a Party to gain Influence over that > Politican, depending on the Politician's Echelon". It does not state > clearly that the party must be the same as that of the politician. It > does say "that politician", but it is unclear what "that" means in > this context, and there is certainly no textual basis for assuming > that it means they must be of the same party. Further, the rule states > that the process depends on "depend[s] on the Politician's Echelon", > implying via expressio unius est exclusio alterius that it doesn't > depend on anything else. In short, there is no textual basis for > limiting the action to politicians of the same party as the favors. It > would be reasonable to say that the action fails because its > definition is ambiguous, but this is against the principle that the > statements of the rules must be given effect, insofar as it is > possible. > > -Aris
-- >From V.J. Rada
