On 1/22/2019 10:24 AM, D. Margaux wrote:>> On Jan 20, 2019, at 7:25 PM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It’s definitely 1,000,000,000 actions, according to CFJ 3597, but >> I think that CFJ may also suggest that we can only levy one fine (I’m not >> sure about that though). > > I admit that I don’t fully understand this CFJ decision. However, aren’t > there CFJs that say, essentially, that a player cannot use a shorthand “I > perform an action X times,” when X is a number large enough that the > player couldn’t reasonably spell out all of those actions separately in > the message? If I am remembering that right, and if the creation of each > unit of influence is a separate action, then perhaps the attempt create > 1,000,000,000 units of influence failed under that reasoning. The context of CFJ 3597 was different. In that case, V.J. Rada was attempting to satisfy an auction debt of N by separating the auction payment into N payments of 1, and performing other actions in between each payment that, at the time, would get the 1 back to em - i.e. trying to satisfy a single auction debt of N by transferring the same coin back and forth N times. So the finding of CFJ 3597 is that an action explicitly specified in the Rules like "paying N coins to do X" has to be done as a single act to succeed, and can't be done via N payments of 1. The rules breakage in question was "failure to pay for the auction in a timely fashion" (after the N transfers of 1 were found to have failed to pay the debt). So it was a single crime of failing to pay N - the N attempts to pay 1 weren't criminal in and of themselves. In your case, each award of 1 may or may not be a separate act, R2542 is not really clear on that. In particular, the legal awards of 3 to judges or an advisor implies that the award of 3 is a single action, and the first sentence says "award Favours" instead of "award a Favour", so I'm inclined to think that an award of N written as a single action is a single act and subject to a single penalty. But YMMV on that - breaking a SHALL NOT by awarding yourself N is worse than doing so by awarding yourself only 1, so there may be arguments the other way. If we first determine that your act was N acts of 1 and not one act of N, then we can move on to the (rather handwavy case-by-case IMO) precedents of whether "N acts of 1" gets to that "too large" level. -G.