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.

Reply via email to