Justice favors from your blue carding, ironically. There are several reasons I did this, despite being so opposed to scams in general:
* It did not involve breaking any rule. * It was reasonably contained (and I fully intend that any fix proposal reset my invalid influences) * It did not involve any (ab)use of my official power * I wanted to see if it works I intend to write a fix proposal shortly, although I may wait to see the results of my CFJ first. I will not be disappointed if it failed, although I would appreciate a clear explanation of the legal reasoning. I find it hard to believe that there's a party restriction in there, so I think the most reasonable outcomes are complete success or complete failure of the entire mechanism. I pay 15 shinies to the Clork for putting up with this. To be clear, I do not intend to force through any non scam-fix proposal. -Aris On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 4:08 PM VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
