Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:
> On 2017-11-28 13:05, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:
> > > Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a
> > > contract when it's destroyed?
> > "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by Agora."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> And if Agora can't own a given type of asset? (Or does this supersede those
> provisions?)

There's a specific exception for Agora owning things it "can't" own:
   Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise lack
   an owner, it is owned by Agora. If an asset's backing document
   restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset
   CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside that
   class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside that
   class (except if it is owned by Agora, in which case any player
   CAN transfer or destroy it without objection). The restrictions in
   the previous sentence are subject to modification by its backing
   document.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Alexis Hunt]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 21:24 Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:07 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >
> > I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after
> > a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent
> deregistration
> > took place with eir consent.
>
> I’ll note that this was ineffective, as you did not own a shiny at that
> time.
>
> -o
>
>
I rest my case, no pun intended.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:07 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after
> a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration
> took place with eir consent.

I’ll note that this was ineffective, as you did not own a shiny at that time.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

What if the asset could not be owned by Agora?

On 11/27/2017 09:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:
>> Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a
>> contract when it's destroyed?
> "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by Agora."
>
>
>

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Madeline]

On 2017-11-28 13:05, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:

Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a
contract when it's destroyed?

"If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by Agora."



And if Agora can't own a given type of asset? (Or does this supersede 
those provisions?)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:
> Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a
> contract when it's destroyed?

"If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by Agora."

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off
for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit).  Can't remember what the
limit was or if it's still on.


omd confirmed in ##nomic that this happened, and there were two messages 
by V.J.Rada caught by the limit.


As revealed there, the limit (at least for -business) is 500 KB.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Ørjan Johansen]

NttPF

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:


On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:45 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and the
serial comma is only required in lists, right?

-Aris



Probably. I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after
a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration
took place with eir consent.}

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


I've actually been meaning to ask you this for a while Ørjan, and now
seems like a decent time to do so (i don't mean to be rude or w/e
obv). What's the story behind your watching of Agora? Because it seems
like you were around in like 1993 and have been watching quite
actively for several years? I actually don't know the story behind
that.


I stopped following Agora some time early last decade. (I was without a 
computer at about the same time I started getting RSI symptoms, so took a 
long break.)


Later, I got onto the #esoteric@freenode IRC channel, which had several 
Agorans as well.


In 2013 Agora had the big 20 year anniversary, which some of them told me 
about, and I was tempted into reenabling my list email (I had never 
technically unsubscribed).  And I've been around since.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[ATMunn]

But what if it would?

On 11/22/2017 7:08 PM, VJ Rada wrote:

You know I actually have a completely legal way that may well work and
be able to get infinite favours.

It would be unethical to do it (I promised Cuddlebeam to keep it
secret) but wouldn't it be funny if I did it?

(The answer to that question is no, rada. it wouldn't)

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Madeline  wrote:

Pledges aren't a currency and I doubt anyone would support a fine like that.



On 2017-11-23 11:02, VJ Rada wrote:


The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to
fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny
and 3,000 favours?

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline  wrote:


And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did
so
yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies!


On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote:


Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in
the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater
of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the
infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an
amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be
incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best
interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate
shinies-only penalties.

"E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution
of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed"
This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is
"currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not.



On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:


I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately.

-Aris

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:


Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not
effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can
only have a penalty imposed in shinies.

Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar
Telnaior.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson 
wrote:


On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn 
wrote:

I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now
interim.

On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote:


I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing
3,000
fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
similar)


I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on.

-o



--
   From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

Remember the way I tried to pay for the Estate? Given that economic
favours are 1 shiny right now, o. could generate as many favours as e
wanted if e got rid of eir shinies (e would be the earliest player to
register w/ 0 shinies). E could, of course, do that for other people
via contract if e got the other 0-shiny people out of the way.

Way that I promised CB to keep secret is obvious, but still secret.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Trying to get infinite stuff has a good history if it's legal go for it,
> there's several rulings that may stop that kind of thing but you
> never know.
>
> The shinies system was broken in subtle ways, but some big
> systems have big loopholes from the start we just shrug and reset,
> better now then after we've invested time in it - I did something like
> that at least once.
>
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> You know I actually have a completely legal way that may well work and
>> be able to get infinite favours.
>>
>> It would be unethical to do it (I promised Cuddlebeam to keep it
>> secret) but wouldn't it be funny if I did it?
>>
>> (The answer to that question is no, rada. it wouldn't)
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Madeline  wrote:
>> > Pledges aren't a currency and I doubt anyone would support a fine like 
>> > that.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2017-11-23 11:02, VJ Rada wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to
>> >> fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny
>> >> and 3,000 favours?
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did
>> >>> so
>> >>> yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies!
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote:
>> 
>>  Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in
>>  the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater
>>  of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the
>>  infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an
>>  amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be
>>  incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best
>>  interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate
>>  shinies-only penalties.
>> 
>>  "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution
>>  of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed"
>>  This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is
>>  "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant
>>   wrote:
>> >
>> > I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately.
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not
>> >> effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can
>> >> only have a penalty imposed in shinies.
>> >>
>> >> Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar
>> >> Telnaior.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson 
>> >> wrote:
>> 
>>  On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>  I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now
>>  interim.
>> 
>>  On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>> >
>> > I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing
>> > 3,000
>> > fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
>> > agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
>> > similar)
>> >>>
>> >>> I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on.
>> >>>
>> >>> -o
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>   From V.J. Rada
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

Trying to get infinite stuff has a good history if it's legal go for it,
there's several rulings that may stop that kind of thing but you
never know.

The shinies system was broken in subtle ways, but some big 
systems have big loopholes from the start we just shrug and reset,
better now then after we've invested time in it - I did something like
that at least once.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> You know I actually have a completely legal way that may well work and
> be able to get infinite favours.
> 
> It would be unethical to do it (I promised Cuddlebeam to keep it
> secret) but wouldn't it be funny if I did it?
> 
> (The answer to that question is no, rada. it wouldn't)
> 
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Madeline  wrote:
> > Pledges aren't a currency and I doubt anyone would support a fine like that.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2017-11-23 11:02, VJ Rada wrote:
> >>
> >> The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to
> >> fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny
> >> and 3,000 favours?
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did
> >>> so
> >>> yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote:
> 
>  Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in
>  the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater
>  of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the
>  infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an
>  amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be
>  incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best
>  interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate
>  shinies-only penalties.
> 
>  "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution
>  of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed"
>  This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is
>  "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not.
> 
> 
> 
>  On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant
>   wrote:
> >
> > I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>
> >> Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not
> >> effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can
> >> only have a penalty imposed in shinies.
> >>
> >> Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar
> >> Telnaior.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson 
> >> wrote:
> 
>  On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn 
>  wrote:
> 
>  I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now
>  interim.
> 
>  On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> >
> > I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing
> > 3,000
> > fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
> > agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
> > similar)
> >>>
> >>> I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on.
> >>>
> >>> -o
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >>   From V.J. Rada
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

You know I actually have a completely legal way that may well work and
be able to get infinite favours.

It would be unethical to do it (I promised Cuddlebeam to keep it
secret) but wouldn't it be funny if I did it?

(The answer to that question is no, rada. it wouldn't)

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Madeline  wrote:
> Pledges aren't a currency and I doubt anyone would support a fine like that.
>
>
>
> On 2017-11-23 11:02, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to
>> fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny
>> and 3,000 favours?
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline  wrote:
>>>
>>> And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did
>>> so
>>> yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies!
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote:

 Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in
 the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater
 of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the
 infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an
 amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be
 incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best
 interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate
 shinies-only penalties.

 "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution
 of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed"
 This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is
 "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not.



 On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant
  wrote:
>
> I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not
>> effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can
>> only have a penalty imposed in shinies.
>>
>> Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar
>> Telnaior.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson 
>> wrote:

 On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn 
 wrote:

 I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now
 interim.

 On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing
> 3,000
> fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
> agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
> similar)
>>>
>>> I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on.
>>>
>>> -o
>>>
>>
>> --
>>   From V.J. Rada



>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

One is to just say that it is poor drafting and therefore as soon as the 
currencies do not match, we do not know what is within the set and therefore 
only the bounds are known and valid.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Nov 22, 2017, at 7:03 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'll put a solution to that in my ruling.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:02 PM VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
>> The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to
>> fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny
>> and 3,000 favours?
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline  wrote:
>>> And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you
>> did so
>>> yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote:
 
 Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in
 the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater
 of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the
 infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an
 amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be
 incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best
 interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate
 shinies-only penalties.
 
 "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution
 of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed"
 This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is
 "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not.
 
 
 
 On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant
  wrote:
> 
> I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> 
>> Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not
>> effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can
>> only have a penalty imposed in shinies.
>> 
>> Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar
>> Telnaior.
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson 
>> wrote:
 
 On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn 
>> wrote:
 
 I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now
 interim.
 
 On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> 
> I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing
>> 3,000
> fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
> agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
> similar)
>>> 
>>> I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on.
>>> 
>>> -o
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
 
 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Madeline]

Pledges aren't a currency and I doubt anyone would support a fine like that.


On 2017-11-23 11:02, VJ Rada wrote:

The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to
fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny
and 3,000 favours?

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline  wrote:

And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did so
yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies!


On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote:

Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in
the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater
of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the
infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an
amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be
incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best
interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate
shinies-only penalties.

"E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution
of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed"
This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is
"currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not.



On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:

I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately.

-Aris

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not
effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can
only have a penalty imposed in shinies.

Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar
Telnaior.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson 
wrote:

On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn  wrote:

I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now
interim.

On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote:

I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
similar)

I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on.

-o



--
  From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Aris Merchant]

I'll put a solution to that in my ruling.

-Aris

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:02 PM VJ Rada  wrote:

> The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to
> fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny
> and 3,000 favours?
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline  wrote:
> > And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you
> did so
> > yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies!
> >
> >
> > On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote:
> >>
> >> Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in
> >> the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater
> >> of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the
> >> infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an
> >> amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be
> >> incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best
> >> interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate
> >> shinies-only penalties.
> >>
> >> "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution
> >> of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed"
> >> This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is
> >> "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately.
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
>  Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not
>  effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can
>  only have a penalty imposed in shinies.
> 
>  Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar
>  Telnaior.
> 
>  On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson 
>  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now
> >> interim.
> >>
> >> On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing
> 3,000
> >>> fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
> >>> agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
> >>> similar)
> >
> > I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on.
> >
> > -o
> >
> 
> 
>  --
>   From V.J. Rada
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

We need to create a 2d graph with amounts as an x and currency as the y to help 
in this assessment.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Nov 22, 2017, at 7:02 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to
> fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny
> and 3,000 favours?
> 
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline  wrote:
>> And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did so
>> yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies!
>> 
>> 
>> On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> 
>>> Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in
>>> the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater
>>> of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the
>>> infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an
>>> amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be
>>> incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best
>>> interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate
>>> shinies-only penalties.
>>> 
>>> "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution
>>> of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed"
>>> This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is
>>> "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant
>>>  wrote:
 
 I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately.
 
 -Aris
 
 On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not
> effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can
> only have a penalty imposed in shinies.
> 
> Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar
> Telnaior.
> 
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson 
> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now
>>> interim.
>>> 
>>> On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
 
 I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
 fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
 agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
 similar)
>> 
>> I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on.
>> 
>> -o
>> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J. Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to
fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny
and 3,000 favours?

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline  wrote:
> And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did so
> yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies!
>
>
> On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in
>> the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater
>> of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the
>> infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an
>> amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be
>> incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best
>> interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate
>> shinies-only penalties.
>>
>> "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution
>> of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed"
>> This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is
>> "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

 Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not
 effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can
 only have a penalty imposed in shinies.

 Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar
 Telnaior.

 On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson 
 wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
>>
>> I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now
>> interim.
>>
>> On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>>>
>>> I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
>>> fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
>>> agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
>>> similar)
>
> I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on.
>
> -o
>


 --
  From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Because it has to go through the Agora mail server.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Nov 22, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Madeline  wrote:
> 
> Why does it take me a few minutes to receive messages D:
> Whatever, Alexis beat Rada to the punch anyway.
> 
> 
> On 2017-11-23 10:51, Telnaior wrote:
>> With the support of myself and ATMunn, I Levy the Fine.
>> I then act on behalf of VJ Rada to transfer the favours according to the 
>> fine's distribution.
>> 
>> 
>> On 2017-11-23 10:47, ATMunn wrote:
>>> I support.
>>> 
>>> On 11/22/2017 6:45 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
 On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 05:47 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
 p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> This still works because e CAN do so, but it violated a SHALL NOT. I
> point my finger at VJ Rada for distributing favours, when not allowed to
> by a rule.
> 
 
 I had missed the Blue Card option, thank you PSS.
 
   V.J. Rada is clearly guilty of this. I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on
 V.J. Rada, imposing a Blue Card for illegally distributing favours to
 emself. A Blue Card is appropriate in this circumstance because e profited
 significantly and directly from the violation.
 
 Per Rule 2506, I can impose a fine up to the profit of the violation; the
 profit was 3000 NPR Favours, and so I impose a fine of 3000 NPR Favours. As
 Favours cannot be transferred to Agora to pay the fine, and every Agoran is
 aggrieved by this scam, I direct that the favours be distributed evenly
 among Agorans other than myself (who cannot be a beneficiary of the fine)
 and V.J. Rada, as follows:
 
 214 each to:
 Aris
 o
 天火狐
 Quazie
 Cuddle Beam
 G.
 ATMunn
 Trigon
 Gaelan
 nichdel
 
 215 each to:
 G.
 Telnaior
 PSS
 Corona
 
 I intend, with two support, to Levy a Fine upon V.J. Rada for the above
 Blue Card.
 
>> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Aris Merchant]

H. arbitor G., could you assign the blue card CFJ to me ASAP? It would be
nice to get some closure on this.

-Aris

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:59 PM ATMunn  wrote:

> Wait nevermind, maybe e didn't.
>
> On 11/22/2017 6:57 PM, ATMunn wrote:
> > The transfer failed, as Alexis had already acted on your behalf to pay
> the fine.
> >
> > On 11/22/2017 6:50 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> I pay one shiny to create the following contract (destroying 10 bills
> >> and trading w/ ACU)
> >> TITLE: WHATEVER
> >> TEXT: THIS CONTRACT HOLDS RADA's Assets
> >>
> >> i transfer 3,000 justice favours to this contract
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Aris Merchant
> >>  wrote:
> >>> I do so.
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Telnaior  wrote:
>  I support.
> 
> 
> 
>  On 2017-11-23 10:45, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 05:47 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This still works because e CAN do so, but it violated a SHALL NOT. I
> >> point my finger at VJ Rada for distributing favours, when not
> allowed to
> >> by a rule.
> >>
> > I had missed the Blue Card option, thank you PSS.
> >
> >V.J. Rada is clearly guilty of this. I impose the Cold Hand of
> Justice
> > on
> > V.J. Rada, imposing a Blue Card for illegally distributing favours to
> > emself. A Blue Card is appropriate in this circumstance because e
> profited
> > significantly and directly from the violation.
> >
> > Per Rule 2506, I can impose a fine up to the profit of the
> violation; the
> > profit was 3000 NPR Favours, and so I impose a fine of 3000 NPR
> Favours.
> > As
> > Favours cannot be transferred to Agora to pay the fine, and every
> Agoran
> > is
> > aggrieved by this scam, I direct that the favours be distributed
> evenly
> > among Agorans other than myself (who cannot be a beneficiary of the
> fine)
> > and V.J. Rada, as follows:
> >
> > 214 each to:
> > Aris
> > o
> > 天火狐
> > Quazie
> > Cuddle Beam
> > G.
> > ATMunn
> > Trigon
> > Gaelan
> > nichdel
> >
> > 215 each to:
> > G.
> > Telnaior
> > PSS
> > Corona
> >
> > I intend, with two support, to Levy a Fine upon V.J. Rada for the
> above
> > Blue Card.
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Madeline]

And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you 
did so yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies!



On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote:

Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in
the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater
of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the
infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an
amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be
incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best
interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate
shinies-only penalties.

"E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution
of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed"
This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is
"currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not.



On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:

I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately.

-Aris

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not
effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can
only have a penalty imposed in shinies.

Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar Telnaior.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn  wrote:

I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now interim.

On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote:

I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
similar)

I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on.

-o




--
 From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[ATMunn]

Wait nevermind, maybe e didn't.

On 11/22/2017 6:57 PM, ATMunn wrote:

The transfer failed, as Alexis had already acted on your behalf to pay the fine.

On 11/22/2017 6:50 PM, VJ Rada wrote:

I pay one shiny to create the following contract (destroying 10 bills
and trading w/ ACU)
TITLE: WHATEVER
TEXT: THIS CONTRACT HOLDS RADA's Assets

i transfer 3,000 justice favours to this contract

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:

I do so.

-Aris

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Telnaior  wrote:

I support.



On 2017-11-23 10:45, Alexis Hunt wrote:


On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 05:47 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:


This still works because e CAN do so, but it violated a SHALL NOT. I
point my finger at VJ Rada for distributing favours, when not allowed to
by a rule.


I had missed the Blue Card option, thank you PSS.

   V.J. Rada is clearly guilty of this. I impose the Cold Hand of Justice
on
V.J. Rada, imposing a Blue Card for illegally distributing favours to
emself. A Blue Card is appropriate in this circumstance because e profited
significantly and directly from the violation.

Per Rule 2506, I can impose a fine up to the profit of the violation; the
profit was 3000 NPR Favours, and so I impose a fine of 3000 NPR Favours.
As
Favours cannot be transferred to Agora to pay the fine, and every Agoran
is
aggrieved by this scam, I direct that the favours be distributed evenly
among Agorans other than myself (who cannot be a beneficiary of the fine)
and V.J. Rada, as follows:

214 each to:
Aris
o
天火狐
Quazie
Cuddle Beam
G.
ATMunn
Trigon
Gaelan
nichdel

215 each to:
G.
Telnaior
PSS
Corona

I intend, with two support, to Levy a Fine upon V.J. Rada for the above
Blue Card.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

Huh, that is weird but fair enough!

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Madeline  wrote:
> SORE WA CHIGAU YO
> "For each Party, there is a currency called Favours in that Party."
>
>
>
> On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in
>> the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater
>> of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the
>> infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an
>> amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be
>> incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best
>> interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate
>> shinies-only penalties.
>>
>> "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution
>> of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed"
>> This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is
>> "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

 Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not
 effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can
 only have a penalty imposed in shinies.

 Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar
 Telnaior.

 On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson 
 wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
>>
>> I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now
>> interim.
>>
>> On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>>>
>>> I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
>>> fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
>>> agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
>>> similar)
>
> I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on.
>
> -o
>


 --
  From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 18:57 ATMunn  wrote:

> The transfer failed, as Alexis had already acted on your behalf to pay the
> fine.
>

Assuming the Blue Card worked at all, yes.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Madeline]

SORE WA CHIGAU YO
"For each Party, there is a currency called Favours in that Party."


On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote:

Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in
the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater
of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the
infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an
amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be
incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best
interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate
shinies-only penalties.

"E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution
of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed"
This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is
"currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not.



On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:

I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately.

-Aris

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not
effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can
only have a penalty imposed in shinies.

Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar Telnaior.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn  wrote:

I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now interim.

On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote:

I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
similar)

I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on.

-o




--
 From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

That reminds me more of a Demotivational poster than a meme...

(we can solve the problem by defining anything actually funny to not be a meme).


On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>
> I have found one, linked here: 
> https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED147/55942c3c5fa5b.jpeg
> 
> A mentor of mine has added the following text when showing it: This is like 
> my dog. He brings a 
> smile to my face, but I have to kick him down the stairs, then he rolls down, 
> but otherwise he
> does nothing else.
> 
> DISCLAIMER: No dogs are harmed or actually kicked by my mentor and it was 
> only intended as a joke.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > On Nov 22, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Aris Merchant 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > I am firmly opposed to memes. The represent the end of morality in our
> > society. ;) Serriously though, I have yet to find a meme that actually
> > feels funny to me.
> > 
> > -Aris
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:05 PM VJ Rada  wrote:
> > 
> >> Character limit is good to know: means that if I ever do something
> >> this stupid again I'll just email everybody individually (yes, I
> >> suspected it was obviously not actually gmail's fault, the message
> >> sent just fine)
> >> 
> >> And yes, "thanks Obama" is not a view on the real Obama. And your hard
> >> anti-meme stance, PSS, is irreconcilable with the fact that there is
> >> more than one politician in our very game right now with jokes
> >> referencing real politicians ("Malcolm Turncoat")
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> >> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>  it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did
>  actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards.
>  just gmail sucks. thaks obama.
> >>> 
> >>> omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off
> >>> for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit).  Can't remember what the
> >>> limit was or if it's still on.
> >>> 
> >>> [PSS - 'thanks Obama' is a joke meme, even Obama used it...]
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
> >> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I have found one, linked here: 
https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED147/55942c3c5fa5b.jpeg

A mentor of mine has added the following text when showing it: This is like my 
dog. He brings a smile to my face, but I have to kick him down the stairs, then 
he rolls down, but otherwise he does nothing else.

DISCLAIMER: No dogs are harmed or actually kicked by my mentor and it was only 
intended as a joke.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Nov 22, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I am firmly opposed to memes. The represent the end of morality in our
> society. ;) Serriously though, I have yet to find a meme that actually
> feels funny to me.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:05 PM VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
>> Character limit is good to know: means that if I ever do something
>> this stupid again I'll just email everybody individually (yes, I
>> suspected it was obviously not actually gmail's fault, the message
>> sent just fine)
>> 
>> And yes, "thanks Obama" is not a view on the real Obama. And your hard
>> anti-meme stance, PSS, is irreconcilable with the fact that there is
>> more than one politician in our very game right now with jokes
>> referencing real politicians ("Malcolm Turncoat")
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
 it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did
 actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards.
 just gmail sucks. thaks obama.
>>> 
>>> omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off
>>> for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit).  Can't remember what the
>>> limit was or if it's still on.
>>> 
>>> [PSS - 'thanks Obama' is a joke meme, even Obama used it...]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Corona wrote:
> I'll concede that my argument only applies if players think them
> winning would be, by far, the most fun/ desirable experience. If
> another player has done a lot for Agora, it will be natural to say "It
> would be awesome if e were rewarded for eir effort". Also, of course,
> Imperial nomics exist, where players derive pleasure from pleading to
> the Emperor/ress.

Well there's also the "competition is fun" aspect!  We decided on a set
of rules.  If someone jumps into the lead using those rules, then it's
"fun" to see if you can stop them using the same rules, otherwise the win
doesn't feel earned.  So it's good to keep win conditions as something
that's competitive.  (winning by victory election was kinda blah, though
there were extenuating circumstances in that one such that the "win" was
a means to a greater end for some folks).

If someone "did something for Agora", the more usual route is a relevant
Patent Title.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Okay, thanks for the explanation, but I still say anyone who wants to bring any 
kind of politics into Agora in anything other than a fun, light-hearted, 
joking, and non-demeaning way should pack their bags and get lost.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Nov 22, 2017, at 4:59 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did
>> actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards.
>> just gmail sucks. thaks obama.
> 
> omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off
> for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit).  Can't remember what the
> limit was or if it's still on.
> 
> [PSS - 'thanks Obama' is a joke meme, even Obama used it...]
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

We've had plenty of games that don't need any deceit or trading of wins.  
Simple trivia or puzzle contests for example.Farming games where everyone
invests in a different portfolio, and portfolio success has random elements.

I think, as impossible as it is to define algorithmically, it's not too
difficult to know what rules "intend" to do much of the time, and it's
often pretty clear when a win is "as intended" versus "via loophole".


On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> it is a strong expectation in every game that every player can win the
> game, and has a decent chance of doing so. that's just what games do.
> 
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:51 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > in that sense so is every game mechanic in every game ever created.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Corona  wrote:
> >> Yes, but enacting ribbons that everyone has a roughly equal chance of
> >> winning is kind of "trading wins"
> >>
> >> On 11/22/17, Aris Merchant  wrote:
> >>> What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of
> >>> them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of
> >>> honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think
> >>> the players who enacted them each expected to win by them.
> >>>
> >>> -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Corona]

I'll concede that my argument only applies if players think them
winning would be, by far, the most fun/ desirable experience. If
another player has done a lot for Agora, it will be natural to say "It
would be awesome if e were rewarded for eir effort". Also, of course,
Imperial nomics exist, where players derive pleasure from pleading to
the Emperor/ress.

On 11/22/17, Aris Merchant  wrote:
> What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of
> them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of
> honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think
> the players who enacted them each expected to win by them.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Corona 
> wrote:
>> I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past
>> experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other
>> players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more
>> proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some
>> deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability.
>> (And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's
>> introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or
>> anything)
>>
>> On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>>> That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in
>>> other
>>> games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could
>>> decide
>>> to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month;
>>> no
>>> deceit is necessary for the competition.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona,  wrote:
>>>
 Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable
 practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself
 a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some
 level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than
 a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'.

 On 11/22/17, ATMunn  wrote:
 > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to
 prevent
 > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so
 > what?
 They
 > become the Speaker, and the game moves on.
 >
 > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
 >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
 >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player
 >>> to
 >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with
 >>> Shinies
 >>> alone.
 >>
 >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
 >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)
 >>
 >

>>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Aris Merchant]

Also, I don't think they were intended to actually mislead players,
which is one of the requirements for a faking violation. You could not
have thought that anyone was actually going to believe them, so no
violation would have occurred.

-Aris

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:53 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> i copied and pasted 3,000 lies, yes. they were the same lie, and i
> suppose the cards could have been challenged as such (given messages
> are supposed to be taken as a whole for no faking).
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Were they all the same lie?  If so they may just be one violation in total
>> anyway.  (by the same principle of saying "I support" on a single intent
>> 1000 times is only 1 support).
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> The violations were just no faking violations, not related to the
>>> reeferee's power.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Oh, is there a finger-pointing that I should be doing something about
>>> > because of this clause:
>>> >
>>> >> When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over
>>> >>  an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the
>>> >>  Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the
>>> >> investigation and thereby become the investigator.
>>> >
>>> > It would be amusing if the 3000 violations belatedly came through and
>>> > I got to do this.
>>> >
>>> > It also reveals a hole in the above clause, if the Referee gets to eir
>>> > own punishment before the Arbitor, the Referee can conclude the
>>> > investigation before the Arbitor can do anything about it...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

The lies were not the same every time though (for example: I am
Uruguayan). They were in the form "in the next sentence, I will do
something). So they were seperate.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:53 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> i copied and pasted 3,000 lies, yes. they were the same lie, and i
> suppose the cards could have been challenged as such (given messages
> are supposed to be taken as a whole for no faking).
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Were they all the same lie?  If so they may just be one violation in total
>> anyway.  (by the same principle of saying "I support" on a single intent
>> 1000 times is only 1 support).
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> The violations were just no faking violations, not related to the
>>> reeferee's power.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Oh, is there a finger-pointing that I should be doing something about
>>> > because of this clause:
>>> >
>>> >> When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over
>>> >>  an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the
>>> >>  Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the
>>> >> investigation and thereby become the investigator.
>>> >
>>> > It would be amusing if the 3000 violations belatedly came through and
>>> > I got to do this.
>>> >
>>> > It also reveals a hole in the above clause, if the Referee gets to eir
>>> > own punishment before the Arbitor, the Referee can conclude the
>>> > investigation before the Arbitor can do anything about it...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

The basis is there are some kind of violations that are truly impossible to
take back.  E.g. if it's against the rule to reveal some secret information,
and you reveal it, you can't undo that.

Once you have that base case (situation where it's impossible to take
something back), it's easy to extend the concept to situations where it's
merely impractical to take it back.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Corona wrote:
> That's what I wondered: even though one annotation in the FLR says:
> "Players must obey the rules, even if no rule says so", which would,
> IMO, imply that ILLEGAL actions are IMPOSSIBLE, yet Agorans keep the
> distinction, as was explained to me by somebody, because an ILLEGAL
> action and its consequences do not have to be rolled back if it's
> inconsequential or even beneficial to preserving the spirit of Agora
> 
> On 11/22/17, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Corona wrote:
> >> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable
> >> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself
> >> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some
> >> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than
> >> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'.
> >
> > There's a certain ethical stance that's been expressed around here; wins
> > can be deceitful as long as they're LEGAL, but ILLEGAL wins are cheaper
> > somehow and some people just won't break the rules in order to win, or at
> > least not if the rules-breakage is critical to the win.  Otherwise, why
> > make
> > anything ILLEGAL at all?
> >
> > Again with the boardgame example, if you got to the end of a boardgame
> > and the winner confessed "actually I had an advantage because I secretly
> > kept an extra card in my hand the whole game", would you still call em
> > the winner or would you say e cheated and didn't win?
> >
> > (Also: this discussion will get more intense if we commodify punishments
> > via Blot currencies).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

i copied and pasted 3,000 lies, yes. they were the same lie, and i
suppose the cards could have been challenged as such (given messages
are supposed to be taken as a whole for no faking).

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Were they all the same lie?  If so they may just be one violation in total
> anyway.  (by the same principle of saying "I support" on a single intent
> 1000 times is only 1 support).
>
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> The violations were just no faking violations, not related to the
>> reeferee's power.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Oh, is there a finger-pointing that I should be doing something about
>> > because of this clause:
>> >
>> >> When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over
>> >>  an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the
>> >>  Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the
>> >> investigation and thereby become the investigator.
>> >
>> > It would be amusing if the 3000 violations belatedly came through and
>> > I got to do this.
>> >
>> > It also reveals a hole in the above clause, if the Referee gets to eir
>> > own punishment before the Arbitor, the Referee can conclude the
>> > investigation before the Arbitor can do anything about it...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

Were they all the same lie?  If so they may just be one violation in total
anyway.  (by the same principle of saying "I support" on a single intent
1000 times is only 1 support).

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> The violations were just no faking violations, not related to the
> reeferee's power.
> 
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Oh, is there a finger-pointing that I should be doing something about
> > because of this clause:
> >
> >> When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over
> >>  an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the
> >>  Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the
> >> investigation and thereby become the investigator.
> >
> > It would be amusing if the 3000 violations belatedly came through and
> > I got to do this.
> >
> > It also reveals a hole in the above clause, if the Referee gets to eir
> > own punishment before the Arbitor, the Referee can conclude the
> > investigation before the Arbitor can do anything about it...
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

it is a strong expectation in every game that every player can win the
game, and has a decent chance of doing so. that's just what games do.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:51 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> in that sense so is every game mechanic in every game ever created.
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Corona  wrote:
>> Yes, but enacting ribbons that everyone has a roughly equal chance of
>> winning is kind of "trading wins"
>>
>> On 11/22/17, Aris Merchant  wrote:
>>> What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of
>>> them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of
>>> honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think
>>> the players who enacted them each expected to win by them.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Corona 
>>> wrote:
 I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past
 experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other
 players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more
 proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some
 deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability.
 (And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's
 introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or
 anything)

 On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in
> other
> games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could
> decide
> to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month;
> no
> deceit is necessary for the competition.
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona,  wrote:
>
>> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable
>> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself
>> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some
>> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than
>> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'.
>>
>> On 11/22/17, ATMunn  wrote:
>> > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to
>> prevent
>> > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so
>> > what?
>> They
>> > become the Speaker, and the game moves on.
>> >
>> > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player
>> >>> to
>> >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with
>> >>> Shinies
>> >>> alone.
>> >>
>> >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
>> >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

in that sense so is every game mechanic in every game ever created.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Corona  wrote:
> Yes, but enacting ribbons that everyone has a roughly equal chance of
> winning is kind of "trading wins"
>
> On 11/22/17, Aris Merchant  wrote:
>> What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of
>> them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of
>> honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think
>> the players who enacted them each expected to win by them.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Corona 
>> wrote:
>>> I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past
>>> experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other
>>> players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more
>>> proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some
>>> deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability.
>>> (And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's
>>> introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or
>>> anything)
>>>
>>> On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
 That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in
 other
 games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could
 decide
 to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month;
 no
 deceit is necessary for the competition.

 On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona,  wrote:

> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable
> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself
> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some
> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than
> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'.
>
> On 11/22/17, ATMunn  wrote:
> > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to
> prevent
> > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so
> > what?
> They
> > become the Speaker, and the game moves on.
> >
> > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player
> >>> to
> >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with
> >>> Shinies
> >>> alone.
> >>
> >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
> >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)
> >>
> >
>

>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Corona]

Yes, but enacting ribbons that everyone has a roughly equal chance of
winning is kind of "trading wins"

On 11/22/17, Aris Merchant  wrote:
> What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of
> them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of
> honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think
> the players who enacted them each expected to win by them.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Corona 
> wrote:
>> I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past
>> experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other
>> players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more
>> proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some
>> deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability.
>> (And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's
>> introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or
>> anything)
>>
>> On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>>> That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in
>>> other
>>> games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could
>>> decide
>>> to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month;
>>> no
>>> deceit is necessary for the competition.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona,  wrote:
>>>
 Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable
 practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself
 a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some
 level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than
 a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'.

 On 11/22/17, ATMunn  wrote:
 > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to
 prevent
 > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so
 > what?
 They
 > become the Speaker, and the game moves on.
 >
 > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
 >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
 >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player
 >>> to
 >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with
 >>> Shinies
 >>> alone.
 >>
 >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
 >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)
 >>
 >

>>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Aris Merchant]

What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of
them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of
honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think
the players who enacted them each expected to win by them.

-Aris

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Corona  wrote:
> I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past
> experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other
> players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more
> proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some
> deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability.
> (And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's
> introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or
> anything)
>
> On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in other
>> games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could decide
>> to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month; no
>> deceit is necessary for the competition.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona,  wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable
>>> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself
>>> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some
>>> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than
>>> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'.
>>>
>>> On 11/22/17, ATMunn  wrote:
>>> > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to
>>> prevent
>>> > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so what?
>>> They
>>> > become the Speaker, and the game moves on.
>>> >
>>> > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>> >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to
>>> >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies
>>> >>> alone.
>>> >>
>>> >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
>>> >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Corona]

That's what I wondered: even though one annotation in the FLR says:
"Players must obey the rules, even if no rule says so", which would,
IMO, imply that ILLEGAL actions are IMPOSSIBLE, yet Agorans keep the
distinction, as was explained to me by somebody, because an ILLEGAL
action and its consequences do not have to be rolled back if it's
inconsequential or even beneficial to preserving the spirit of Agora

On 11/22/17, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Corona wrote:
>> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable
>> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself
>> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some
>> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than
>> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'.
>
> There's a certain ethical stance that's been expressed around here; wins
> can be deceitful as long as they're LEGAL, but ILLEGAL wins are cheaper
> somehow and some people just won't break the rules in order to win, or at
> least not if the rules-breakage is critical to the win.  Otherwise, why
> make
> anything ILLEGAL at all?
>
> Again with the boardgame example, if you got to the end of a boardgame
> and the winner confessed "actually I had an advantage because I secretly
> kept an extra card in my hand the whole game", would you still call em
> the winner or would you say e cheated and didn't win?
>
> (Also: this discussion will get more intense if we commodify punishments
> via Blot currencies).
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

The violations were just no faking violations, not related to the
reeferee's power.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Oh, is there a finger-pointing that I should be doing something about
> because of this clause:
>
>> When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over
>>  an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the
>>  Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the
>> investigation and thereby become the investigator.
>
> It would be amusing if the 3000 violations belatedly came through and
> I got to do this.
>
> It also reveals a hole in the above clause, if the Referee gets to eir
> own punishment before the Arbitor, the Referee can conclude the
> investigation before the Arbitor can do anything about it...
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Corona]

I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past
experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other
players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more
proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some
deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability.
(And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's
introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or
anything)

On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in other
> games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could decide
> to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month; no
> deceit is necessary for the competition.
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona,  wrote:
>
>> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable
>> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself
>> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some
>> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than
>> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'.
>>
>> On 11/22/17, ATMunn  wrote:
>> > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to
>> prevent
>> > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so what?
>> They
>> > become the Speaker, and the game moves on.
>> >
>> > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to
>> >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies
>> >>> alone.
>> >>
>> >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
>> >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Corona wrote:
> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable
> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself
> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some
> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than
> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'.

There's a certain ethical stance that's been expressed around here; wins
can be deceitful as long as they're LEGAL, but ILLEGAL wins are cheaper
somehow and some people just won't break the rules in order to win, or at
least not if the rules-breakage is critical to the win.  Otherwise, why make
anything ILLEGAL at all?

Again with the boardgame example, if you got to the end of a boardgame
and the winner confessed "actually I had an advantage because I secretly
kept an extra card in my hand the whole game", would you still call em
the winner or would you say e cheated and didn't win?

(Also: this discussion will get more intense if we commodify punishments
via Blot currencies).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

Oh, is there a finger-pointing that I should be doing something about
because of this clause:

> When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over
>  an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the
>  Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the
> investigation and thereby become the investigator.

It would be amusing if the 3000 violations belatedly came through and
I got to do this.

It also reveals a hole in the above clause, if the Referee gets to eir
own punishment before the Arbitor, the Referee can conclude the
investigation before the Arbitor can do anything about it...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Alexis Hunt]

That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in other
games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could decide
to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month; no
deceit is necessary for the competition.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona,  wrote:

> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable
> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself
> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some
> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than
> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'.
>
> On 11/22/17, ATMunn  wrote:
> > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to
> prevent
> > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so what?
> They
> > become the Speaker, and the game moves on.
> >
> > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to
> >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies
> >>> alone.
> >>
> >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
> >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)
> >>
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Corona]

Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable
practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself
a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some
level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than
a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'.

On 11/22/17, ATMunn  wrote:
> Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to prevent
> a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so what? They
> become the Speaker, and the game moves on.
>
> On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to
>>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies
>>> alone.
>>
>> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
>> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[ATMunn]

I don't really dislike memes in general, but there are some that I certainly 
don't like, and some are outright stupid. There are some good ones in my 
opinion, though.

Let's not get into a big meme vs anti-meme discussion, though. :P

On 11/22/2017 5:25 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

I am firmly opposed to memes. The represent the end of morality in our
society. ;) Serriously though, I have yet to find a meme that actually
feels funny to me.

-Aris



On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:05 PM VJ Rada  wrote:


Character limit is good to know: means that if I ever do something
this stupid again I'll just email everybody individually (yes, I
suspected it was obviously not actually gmail's fault, the message
sent just fine)

And yes, "thanks Obama" is not a view on the real Obama. And your hard
anti-meme stance, PSS, is irreconcilable with the fact that there is
more than one politician in our very game right now with jokes
referencing real politicians ("Malcolm Turncoat")

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:




On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did
actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards.
just gmail sucks. thaks obama.


omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off
for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit).  Can't remember what the
limit was or if it's still on.

[PSS - 'thanks Obama' is a joke meme, even Obama used it...]







--
 From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

Well, I do get it.

If someone is the Banker in Monopoly, and says "I win" and you know for a fact
that e just took all the money from the bank, a reasonable response is to grab
eir money and put it back in the bank (which would also be "against the rules").

[At least that's the excuse I'm sticking with for why I was in a fistfight with
my cousin at Christmas 35 years ago].


On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to prevent a
> win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so what? They
> become the Speaker, and the game moves on.
> 
> On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > > Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to
> > > call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies
> > > alone.
> > 
> > I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
> > counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)
> > 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Aris Merchant]

I am firmly opposed to memes. The represent the end of morality in our
society. ;) Serriously though, I have yet to find a meme that actually
feels funny to me.

-Aris



On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:05 PM VJ Rada  wrote:

> Character limit is good to know: means that if I ever do something
> this stupid again I'll just email everybody individually (yes, I
> suspected it was obviously not actually gmail's fault, the message
> sent just fine)
>
> And yes, "thanks Obama" is not a view on the real Obama. And your hard
> anti-meme stance, PSS, is irreconcilable with the fact that there is
> more than one politician in our very game right now with jokes
> referencing real politicians ("Malcolm Turncoat")
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did
> >> actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards.
> >> just gmail sucks. thaks obama.
> >
> > omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off
> > for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit).  Can't remember what the
> > limit was or if it's still on.
> >
> > [PSS - 'thanks Obama' is a joke meme, even Obama used it...]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[ATMunn]

Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to prevent a 
win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so what? They 
become the Speaker, and the game moves on.

On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:

On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:

Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to
call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies
alone.


I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

Character limit is good to know: means that if I ever do something
this stupid again I'll just email everybody individually (yes, I
suspected it was obviously not actually gmail's fault, the message
sent just fine)

And yes, "thanks Obama" is not a view on the real Obama. And your hard
anti-meme stance, PSS, is irreconcilable with the fact that there is
more than one politician in our very game right now with jokes
referencing real politicians ("Malcolm Turncoat")

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did
>> actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards.
>> just gmail sucks. thaks obama.
>
> omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off
> for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit).  Can't remember what the
> limit was or if it's still on.
>
> [PSS - 'thanks Obama' is a joke meme, even Obama used it...]
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did
> actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards.
> just gmail sucks. thaks obama.

omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off
for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit).  Can't remember what the
limit was or if it's still on.

[PSS - 'thanks Obama' is a joke meme, even Obama used it...]

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:53 VJ Rada  wrote:

> it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did
> actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards.
> just gmail sucks. thaks obama.
>

That's still rule-breaking. So it doesn't actually end up helping you out.

You can, of course, just destroy the favours and then we won't have to go
through all this mess.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

Someone willing to Favor with intent for fast turnaround?


On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:48 PM Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:45 Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and
> > the
> > > serial comma is only required in lists, right?
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> >
> > Probably. I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after
> > a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration
> > took place with eir consent.}
> >
> > -Alexis
> >
> H. arbitor, I request that this case be assigned as URGENT. My arguments
> will soon follow.
> 
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Three things:

a) No, you didn't, it didn't reach the list, but Gmail had nothing to do
with it.

b) I don't want to argue with you, but what is Obama's connection to this?

c) Grab your politics and run miles away with it, it doesn't belong in
Agora.

On 11/22/2017 04:53 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did
> actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards.
> just gmail sucks. thaks obama.
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:52 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
 On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to
> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies
> alone.
 I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
 counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)
>>> I think in the volume needed, we're looking at rules-violation regardless,
>>> someone can correct me if I'm wrong.  (I also would not be up to rules-
>>> breaking to stop a Win.  A dictatorship maybe but not just a win).
>>>
>>> If we *did* go that route, I'd number the CFJs fractionally and list
>>> them all under a single whole number, so I wouldn't use CFJs that actually
>>> have some interest for anyone.
>>>
>> I'm more willing to use rule-breaking to stop a win that is itself a
>> product of blatant rule-breaking. I would not use it for a different kind
>> of win.
>
>

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did
actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards.
just gmail sucks. thaks obama.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:52 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> > > Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to
>> > > call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies
>> > > alone.
>> >
>> > I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
>> > counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)
>>
>> I think in the volume needed, we're looking at rules-violation regardless,
>> someone can correct me if I'm wrong.  (I also would not be up to rules-
>> breaking to stop a Win.  A dictatorship maybe but not just a win).
>>
>> If we *did* go that route, I'd number the CFJs fractionally and list
>> them all under a single whole number, so I wouldn't use CFJs that actually
>> have some interest for anyone.
>>
>
> I'm more willing to use rule-breaking to stop a win that is itself a
> product of blatant rule-breaking. I would not use it for a different kind
> of win.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Aris Merchant]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:48 PM Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:45 Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and
> the
> > serial comma is only required in lists, right?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
>
> Probably. I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after
> a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration
> took place with eir consent.}
>
> -Alexis
>
H. arbitor, I request that this case be assigned as URGENT. My arguments
will soon follow.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Aris Merchant]

The problem is, "a player or a person" doesn't make terribly much sense in
that light. All players are by definition people.

-Aris

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:44 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and the
> serial comma is only required in lists, right?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
>> I read that as (a player or a person)... not a player or (a person ...).
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:42 VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> > Oh, sorry, correct.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Aris Merchant
>> >  wrote:
>> > > You are a player. Read it again. Also, sorry for the links.
>> > >
>> > > -Aris
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in
>> > august.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant
>> > >>  wrote:
>> > >> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt 
>> > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement
>> that
>> > >> >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an
>> enormous
>> > >> abuse
>> > >> >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be
>> entrusted
>> > with
>> > >> >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits
>> of
>> > this
>> > >> >> scam taken from em.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a
>> > win.
>> > >> As
>> > >> >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First,
>> > >> another
>> > >> >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in
>> > >> order to
>> > >> >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from
>> > >> >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing
>> > >> balloons
>> > >> >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out
>> of
>> > >> >> existence by proposal.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort
>> to
>> > me.
>> > >> >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer
>> > issue
>> > >> >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences
>> > >> politicians
>> > >> >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and
>> agrees
>> > >> not
>> > >> >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
>> > >> >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the
>> > law,
>> > >> >> which I am also loathe to do.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing
>> anything
>> > >> >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last
>> > >> >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be
>> undone
>> > >> >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so
>> that it
>> > >> can
>> > >> >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora
>> does
>> > >> not
>> > >> >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward).
>> PSS
>> > >> >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of
>> Rule
>> > >> 2160
>> > >> >> is as follows:
>> > >> >> {{{
>> > >> >>   A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to
>> perform
>> > an
>> > >> >>   action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for
>> an
>> > >> >>   office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e
>> held
>> > the
>> > >> >>   office, as long as
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the
>> action,
>> > >> >>  other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
>> > >> >>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may
>> > allow
>> > >> >>   special deputisation.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular
>> > office,
>> > >> >>   via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
>> > >> >>  holding that office, to perform the action. This
>> > requirement is
>> > >> >>  fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the
>> > action
>> > >> >>  to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the
>> aforementioned
>> > >> >>  time limit 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:52 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > > Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to
> > > call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies
> > > alone.
> >
> > I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
> > counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)
>
> I think in the volume needed, we're looking at rules-violation regardless,
> someone can correct me if I'm wrong.  (I also would not be up to rules-
> breaking to stop a Win.  A dictatorship maybe but not just a win).
>
> If we *did* go that route, I'd number the CFJs fractionally and list
> them all under a single whole number, so I wouldn't use CFJs that actually
> have some interest for anyone.
>

I'm more willing to use rule-breaking to stop a win that is itself a
product of blatant rule-breaking. I would not use it for a different kind
of win.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

The Oxford comma would be incorrect there. I think if you had meant it
the way alexis reads it you would have said "a player or person who"
instead of "a player or a person who" but it is true gramamatical
ambiguity.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and the
> serial comma is only required in lists, right?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
>> I read that as (a player or a person)... not a player or (a person ...).
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:42 VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> > Oh, sorry, correct.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Aris Merchant
>> >  wrote:
>> > > You are a player. Read it again. Also, sorry for the links.
>> > >
>> > > -Aris
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in
>> > august.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant
>> > >>  wrote:
>> > >> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt 
>> > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement
>> that
>> > >> >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous
>> > >> abuse
>> > >> >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted
>> > with
>> > >> >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of
>> > this
>> > >> >> scam taken from em.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a
>> > win.
>> > >> As
>> > >> >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First,
>> > >> another
>> > >> >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in
>> > >> order to
>> > >> >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from
>> > >> >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing
>> > >> balloons
>> > >> >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out
>> of
>> > >> >> existence by proposal.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to
>> > me.
>> > >> >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer
>> > issue
>> > >> >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences
>> > >> politicians
>> > >> >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and
>> agrees
>> > >> not
>> > >> >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
>> > >> >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the
>> > law,
>> > >> >> which I am also loathe to do.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing
>> anything
>> > >> >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last
>> > >> >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be
>> undone
>> > >> >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that
>> it
>> > >> can
>> > >> >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora
>> does
>> > >> not
>> > >> >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward).
>> PSS
>> > >> >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of
>> Rule
>> > >> 2160
>> > >> >> is as follows:
>> > >> >> {{{
>> > >> >>   A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform
>> > an
>> > >> >>   action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an
>> > >> >>   office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held
>> > the
>> > >> >>   office, as long as
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
>> > >> >>  other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
>> > >> >>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may
>> > allow
>> > >> >>   special deputisation.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular
>> > office,
>> > >> >>   via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
>> > >> >>  holding that office, to perform the action. This
>> > requirement is
>> > >> >>  fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the
>> > action
>> > >> >>  to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>   3. Either (i) the office is vacant; 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:45 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and the
> serial comma is only required in lists, right?
>
> -Aris
>

Probably. I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after
a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration
took place with eir consent.}

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Aris Merchant]

Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and the
serial comma is only required in lists, right?

-Aris

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> I read that as (a player or a person)... not a player or (a person ...).
>
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:42 VJ Rada  wrote:
>
> > Oh, sorry, correct.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Aris Merchant
> >  wrote:
> > > You are a player. Read it again. Also, sorry for the links.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada  wrote:
> > >
> > >> My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in
> > august.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant
> > >>  wrote:
> > >> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt 
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement
> that
> > >> >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous
> > >> abuse
> > >> >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted
> > with
> > >> >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of
> > this
> > >> >> scam taken from em.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a
> > win.
> > >> As
> > >> >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First,
> > >> another
> > >> >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in
> > >> order to
> > >> >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from
> > >> >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing
> > >> balloons
> > >> >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out
> of
> > >> >> existence by proposal.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to
> > me.
> > >> >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer
> > issue
> > >> >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences
> > >> politicians
> > >> >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and
> agrees
> > >> not
> > >> >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
> > >> >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the
> > law,
> > >> >> which I am also loathe to do.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing
> anything
> > >> >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last
> > >> >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be
> undone
> > >> >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that
> it
> > >> can
> > >> >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora
> does
> > >> not
> > >> >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward).
> PSS
> > >> >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of
> Rule
> > >> 2160
> > >> >> is as follows:
> > >> >> {{{
> > >> >>   A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform
> > an
> > >> >>   action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an
> > >> >>   office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held
> > the
> > >> >>   office, as long as
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
> > >> >>  other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
> > >> >>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may
> > allow
> > >> >>   special deputisation.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular
> > office,
> > >> >>   via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
> > >> >>  holding that office, to perform the action. This
> > requirement is
> > >> >>  fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the
> > action
> > >> >>  to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the
> aforementioned
> > >> >>  time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii)
> the
> > >> >>  deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier
> that
> > e
> > >> >>  intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of
> the
> > >> >>  particular action.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an
> elected
> > >> >>   

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Alexis Hunt]

I read that as (a player or a person)... not a player or (a person ...).

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:42 VJ Rada  wrote:

> Oh, sorry, correct.
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > You are a player. Read it again. Also, sorry for the links.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada  wrote:
> >
> >> My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in
> august.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant
> >>  wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that
> >> >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous
> >> abuse
> >> >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted
> with
> >> >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of
> this
> >> >> scam taken from em.
> >> >>
> >> >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a
> win.
> >> As
> >> >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First,
> >> another
> >> >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in
> >> order to
> >> >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from
> >> >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing
> >> balloons
> >> >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of
> >> >> existence by proposal.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to
> me.
> >> >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer
> issue
> >> >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences
> >> politicians
> >> >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees
> >> not
> >> >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
> >> >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the
> law,
> >> >> which I am also loathe to do.
> >> >>
> >> >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything
> >> >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last
> >> >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone
> >> >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it
> >> can
> >> >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does
> >> not
> >> >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach.
> >> >>
> >> >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS
> >> >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule
> >> 2160
> >> >> is as follows:
> >> >> {{{
> >> >>   A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform
> an
> >> >>   action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an
> >> >>   office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held
> the
> >> >>   office, as long as
> >> >>
> >> >>   1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
> >> >>  other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and
> >> >>
> >> >>   2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
> >> >>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation.
> >> >>
> >> >>   Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may
> allow
> >> >>   special deputisation.
> >> >>
> >> >>   A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular
> office,
> >> >>   via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true:
> >> >>
> >> >>   1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
> >> >>  holding that office, to perform the action. This
> requirement is
> >> >>  fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.
> >> >>
> >> >>   2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the
> action
> >> >>  to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant.
> >> >>
> >> >>   3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned
> >> >>  time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the
> >> >>  deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that
> e
> >> >>  intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the
> >> >>  particular action.
> >> >>
> >> >>   When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected
> >> >>   office, e becomes the holder of that office.
> >> >> }}}
> >> >>
> >> >> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact
> possible to
> >> >> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I
> >> Point
> >> >> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending
> this
> >> >> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare
> this
> >> >> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans.
> >> >>
> >> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

Oh, sorry, correct.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> You are a player. Read it again. Also, sorry for the links.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada  wrote:
>
>> My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in august.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> >
>> >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that
>> >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous
>> abuse
>> >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with
>> >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this
>> >> scam taken from em.
>> >>
>> >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win.
>> As
>> >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First,
>> another
>> >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in
>> order to
>> >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from
>> >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing
>> balloons
>> >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of
>> >> existence by proposal.
>> >>
>> >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me.
>> >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
>> >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences
>> politicians
>> >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees
>> not
>> >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
>> >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law,
>> >> which I am also loathe to do.
>> >>
>> >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything
>> >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last
>> >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone
>> >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it
>> can
>> >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does
>> not
>> >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach.
>> >>
>> >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS
>> >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule
>> 2160
>> >> is as follows:
>> >> {{{
>> >>   A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an
>> >>   action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an
>> >>   office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the
>> >>   office, as long as
>> >>
>> >>   1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
>> >>  other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and
>> >>
>> >>   2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
>> >>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation.
>> >>
>> >>   Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow
>> >>   special deputisation.
>> >>
>> >>   A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office,
>> >>   via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true:
>> >>
>> >>   1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
>> >>  holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is
>> >>  fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.
>> >>
>> >>   2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action
>> >>  to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant.
>> >>
>> >>   3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned
>> >>  time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the
>> >>  deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e
>> >>  intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the
>> >>  particular action.
>> >>
>> >>   When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected
>> >>   office, e becomes the holder of that office.
>> >> }}}
>> >>
>> >> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to
>> >> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I
>> Point
>> >> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this
>> >> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this
>> >> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans.
>> >>
>> >> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being
>> >> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order,
>> >> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed
>> in em
>> >> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers
>> >> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Aris Merchant]

You are a player. Read it again. Also, sorry for the links.

-Aris

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada  wrote:

> My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in august.
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >
> >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that
> >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous
> abuse
> >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with
> >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this
> >> scam taken from em.
> >>
> >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win.
> As
> >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First,
> another
> >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in
> order to
> >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from
> >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing
> balloons
> >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of
> >> existence by proposal.
> >>
> >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me.
> >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
> >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences
> politicians
> >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees
> not
> >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
> >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law,
> >> which I am also loathe to do.
> >>
> >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything
> >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last
> >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone
> >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it
> can
> >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does
> not
> >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach.
> >>
> >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS
> >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule
> 2160
> >> is as follows:
> >> {{{
> >>   A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an
> >>   action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an
> >>   office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the
> >>   office, as long as
> >>
> >>   1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
> >>  other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and
> >>
> >>   2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
> >>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation.
> >>
> >>   Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow
> >>   special deputisation.
> >>
> >>   A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office,
> >>   via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true:
> >>
> >>   1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
> >>  holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is
> >>  fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.
> >>
> >>   2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action
> >>  to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant.
> >>
> >>   3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned
> >>  time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the
> >>  deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e
> >>  intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the
> >>  particular action.
> >>
> >>   When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected
> >>   office, e becomes the holder of that office.
> >> }}}
> >>
> >> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to
> >> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I
> Point
> >> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this
> >> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this
> >> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans.
> >>
> >> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being
> >> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order,
> >> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed
> in em
> >> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers
> >> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex
> mechanical
> >> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules
> >> that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win
> as a
> >> result of these violations, which would be 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

But you are a player.

On 11/22/2017 04:38 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in august.
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>>
>>> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that
>>> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse
>>> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with
>>> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this
>>> scam taken from em.
>>>
>>> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As
>>> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another
>>> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to
>>> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from
>>> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons
>>> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of
>>> existence by proposal.
>>>
>>> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me.
>>> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
>>> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians
>>> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not
>>> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
>>> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law,
>>> which I am also loathe to do.
>>>
>>> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything
>>> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last
>>> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone
>>> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can
>>> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not
>>> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach.
>>>
>>> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS
>>> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160
>>> is as follows:
>>> {{{
>>>   A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an
>>>   action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an
>>>   office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the
>>>   office, as long as
>>>
>>>   1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
>>>  other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and
>>>
>>>   2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
>>>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation.
>>>
>>>   Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow
>>>   special deputisation.
>>>
>>>   A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office,
>>>   via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true:
>>>
>>>   1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
>>>  holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is
>>>  fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.
>>>
>>>   2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action
>>>  to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant.
>>>
>>>   3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned
>>>  time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the
>>>  deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e
>>>  intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the
>>>  particular action.
>>>
>>>   When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected
>>>   office, e becomes the holder of that office.
>>> }}}
>>>
>>> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to
>>> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point
>>> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this
>>> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this
>>> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans.
>>>
>>> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being
>>> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order,
>>> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em
>>> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers
>>> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical
>>> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules
>>> that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a
>>> result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black
>>> Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory.
>>>
>>> Now, the above may seem IMPOSSIBLE, as Rule 2507 says that Black Cards

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in august.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
>> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that
>> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse
>> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with
>> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this
>> scam taken from em.
>>
>> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As
>> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another
>> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to
>> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from
>> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons
>> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of
>> existence by proposal.
>>
>> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me.
>> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
>> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians
>> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not
>> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
>> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law,
>> which I am also loathe to do.
>>
>> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything
>> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last
>> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone
>> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can
>> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not
>> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach.
>>
>> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS
>> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160
>> is as follows:
>> {{{
>>   A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an
>>   action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an
>>   office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the
>>   office, as long as
>>
>>   1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
>>  other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and
>>
>>   2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
>>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation.
>>
>>   Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow
>>   special deputisation.
>>
>>   A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office,
>>   via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true:
>>
>>   1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
>>  holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is
>>  fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.
>>
>>   2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action
>>  to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant.
>>
>>   3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned
>>  time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the
>>  deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e
>>  intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the
>>  particular action.
>>
>>   When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected
>>   office, e becomes the holder of that office.
>> }}}
>>
>> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to
>> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point
>> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this
>> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this
>> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans.
>>
>> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being
>> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order,
>> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em
>> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers
>> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical
>> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules
>> that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a
>> result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black
>> Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory.
>>
>> Now, the above may seem IMPOSSIBLE, as Rule 2507 says that Black Cards
>> cannot be issued to players. However, it does not contain a claim of
>> precedence over other rules in this regard, and Rule 2451 authorizes me to
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Corona]

Nevermind, I didn't read about the deputisation then.

On 11/22/17, Corona  wrote:
> I nominate myself for referee, and pledge to withdraw my nomination if
> I become Herald
>
> On 11/22/17, ATMunn  wrote:
>> I pledge to make myself a candidate for Referee if nobody else does before
>> I
>> initiate the Agoran Decision to decide the winner.
>>
>> I don't want the office, but I don't want it to be left vacant, either.
>>
>> On 11/22/2017 10:47 AM, ATMunn wrote:
>>> I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now
>>> interim.
>>>
>>> On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
 I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
 fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
 agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
 similar)

>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Aris Merchant]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that
> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse
> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with
> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this
> scam taken from em.
>
> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As
> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another
> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to
> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from
> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons
> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of
> existence by proposal.
>
> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me.
> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians
> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not
> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law,
> which I am also loathe to do.
>
> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything
> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last
> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone
> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can
> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not
> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach.
>
> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS
> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160
> is as follows:
> {{{
>   A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an
>   action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an
>   office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the
>   office, as long as
>
>   1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
>  other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and
>
>   2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation.
>
>   Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow
>   special deputisation.
>
>   A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office,
>   via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true:
>
>   1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
>  holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is
>  fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.
>
>   2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action
>  to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant.
>
>   3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned
>  time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the
>  deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e
>  intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the
>  particular action.
>
>   When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected
>   office, e becomes the holder of that office.
> }}}
>
> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to
> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point
> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this
> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this
> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans.
>
> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being
> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order,
> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em
> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers
> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical
> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules
> that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a
> result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black
> Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory.
>
> Now, the above may seem IMPOSSIBLE, as Rule 2507 says that Black Cards
> cannot be issued to players. However, it does not contain a claim of
> precedence over other rules in this regard, and Rule 2451 authorizes me to
> award any card to any player, using Dive. Given the lack of relevant
> precedence claims in either rule, by Rule 1030, the rule with the lowest ID
> number prevails. Thus, it is POSSIBLE for me to award a Black Card and the
> precedence clause in Rule 2451 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

"Cards" is power 2. "Executive Orders" is power 2 and Dive says
"notwithstanding the cards rule" or something like that.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I think that it is clear that this won't work because 2504, the higher power 
> rule states that your action is INEFFECTIVE.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>> On Nov 22, 2017, at 2:15 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>>
>> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that
>> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse
>> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with
>> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this
>> scam taken from em.
>>
>> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As
>> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another
>> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to
>> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from
>> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons
>> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of
>> existence by proposal.
>>
>> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me.
>> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
>> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians
>> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not
>> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
>> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law,
>> which I am also loathe to do.
>>
>> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything
>> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last
>> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone
>> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can
>> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not
>> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach.
>>
>> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS
>> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160
>> is as follows:
>> {{{
>>  A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an
>>  action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an
>>  office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the
>>  office, as long as
>>
>>  1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
>> other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and
>>
>>  2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
>>   is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation.
>>
>>  Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow
>>  special deputisation.
>>
>>  A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office,
>>  via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true:
>>
>>  1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
>> holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is
>> fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.
>>
>>  2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action
>> to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant.
>>
>>  3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned
>> time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the
>> deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e
>> intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the
>> particular action.
>>
>>  When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected
>>  office, e becomes the holder of that office.
>> }}}
>>
>> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to
>> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point
>> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this
>> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this
>> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans.
>>
>> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being
>> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order,
>> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em
>> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers
>> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical
>> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules
>> that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a
>> result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black
>> Card is the only available punishment which 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

black card? that's the only remedy, although the referee is free to not card.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Yes I was just doing the sums of AP and shinies and realizing same.
>
> Well if a non-player wants to take this route I'm game to do the Officing.
> Will raise an interesting question on what happens if a non-player
> unequivocally breaks a rule ("A person SHALL NOT initiate an excess case.")
>
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to call
>> sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies alone.
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:34 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> > > Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
>> > > illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences
>> > politicians
>> > > sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not
>> > > to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
>> > > responsibility.
>> >
>> > If some people call a bunch of CFJs (on trivial matters), and others favor
>> > them, and I assign them and they judge, and I award, can we get sufficient
>> > judicial favours spread around to counteract, entirely legally?  (if we
>> > don't hit the Excess limit).
>> >
>> > Further  if judges file Motions after judging and then re-judge, they
>> > can be awarded twice.  If then the group-file option is used with a gang
>> > of three conspirators, three times.  (I'm actually amazed no one has used
>> > Motions to double their judicial rewards so far, but I guess the rewards
>> > are low in normal circumstances).
>> >
>> > Sorry I haven't worked through the win mechanism to know if this works, I
>> > just noticed I could award favors for CFJs.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I think that it is clear that this won't work because 2504, the higher power 
rule states that your action is INEFFECTIVE.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Nov 22, 2017, at 2:15 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that
> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse
> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with
> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this
> scam taken from em.
> 
> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As
> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another
> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to
> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from
> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons
> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of
> existence by proposal.
> 
> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me.
> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians
> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not
> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law,
> which I am also loathe to do.
> 
> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything
> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last
> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone
> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can
> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not
> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach.
> 
> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS
> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160
> is as follows:
> {{{
>  A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an
>  action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an
>  office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the
>  office, as long as
> 
>  1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
> other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and
> 
>  2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
>   is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation.
> 
>  Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow
>  special deputisation.
> 
>  A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office,
>  via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true:
> 
>  1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
> holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is
> fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.
> 
>  2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action
> to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant.
> 
>  3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned
> time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the
> deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e
> intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the
> particular action.
> 
>  When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected
>  office, e becomes the holder of that office.
> }}}
> 
> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to
> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point
> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this
> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this
> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans.
> 
> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being
> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order,
> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em
> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers
> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical
> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules
> that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a
> result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black
> Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory.
> 
> Now, the above may seem IMPOSSIBLE, as Rule 2507 says that Black Cards
> cannot be issued to players. However, it does not contain a claim of
> precedence over other rules in this regard, and Rule 2451 authorizes me to
> award any card to any player, using Dive. Given the lack of relevant

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to
> > call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies
> > alone.
> 
> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)

I think in the volume needed, we're looking at rules-violation regardless,
someone can correct me if I'm wrong.  (I also would not be up to rules-
breaking to stop a Win.  A dictatorship maybe but not just a win).

If we *did* go that route, I'd number the CFJs fractionally and list
them all under a single whole number, so I wouldn't use CFJs that actually
have some interest for anyone.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

Yes I was just doing the sums of AP and shinies and realizing same.

Well if a non-player wants to take this route I'm game to do the Officing.
Will raise an interesting question on what happens if a non-player
unequivocally breaks a rule ("A person SHALL NOT initiate an excess case.")

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to call
> sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies alone.
> 
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:34 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > > Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
> > > illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences
> > politicians
> > > sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not
> > > to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
> > > responsibility.
> >
> > If some people call a bunch of CFJs (on trivial matters), and others favor
> > them, and I assign them and they judge, and I award, can we get sufficient
> > judicial favours spread around to counteract, entirely legally?  (if we
> > don't hit the Excess limit).
> >
> > Further  if judges file Motions after judging and then re-judge, they
> > can be awarded twice.  If then the group-file option is used with a gang
> > of three conspirators, three times.  (I'm actually amazed no one has used
> > Motions to double their judicial rewards so far, but I guess the rewards
> > are low in normal circumstances).
> >
> > Sorry I haven't worked through the win mechanism to know if this works, I
> > just noticed I could award favors for CFJs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to
> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies
> alone.

I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a
counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Alexis Hunt]

Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to call
sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies alone.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:34 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
> > illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences
> politicians
> > sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not
> > to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
> > responsibility.
>
> If some people call a bunch of CFJs (on trivial matters), and others favor
> them, and I assign them and they judge, and I award, can we get sufficient
> judicial favours spread around to counteract, entirely legally?  (if we
> don't hit the Excess limit).
>
> Further  if judges file Motions after judging and then re-judge, they
> can be awarded twice.  If then the group-file option is used with a gang
> of three conspirators, three times.  (I'm actually amazed no one has used
> Motions to double their judicial rewards so far, but I guess the rewards
> are low in normal circumstances).
>
> Sorry I haven't worked through the win mechanism to know if this works, I
> just noticed I could award favors for CFJs.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians
> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not
> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
> responsibility.

If some people call a bunch of CFJs (on trivial matters), and others favor 
them, and I assign them and they judge, and I award, can we get sufficient 
judicial favours spread around to counteract, entirely legally?  (if we
don't hit the Excess limit).

Further  if judges file Motions after judging and then re-judge, they
can be awarded twice.  If then the group-file option is used with a gang
of three conspirators, three times.  (I'm actually amazed no one has used
Motions to double their judicial rewards so far, but I guess the rewards
are low in normal circumstances).

Sorry I haven't worked through the win mechanism to know if this works, I 
just noticed I could award favors for CFJs.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

No, because e is still interim.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Nov 22, 2017, at 2:21 PM, ATMunn  wrote:
> 
> by the way, does the deputisation end the election I initiated?
> 
> On 11/22/2017 2:20 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>> RIP VJ Rada.
>> I support.
>> On 11/22/2017 2:15 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that
>>> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse
>>> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with
>>> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this
>>> scam taken from em.
>>> 
>>> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As
>>> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another
>>> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to
>>> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from
>>> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons
>>> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of
>>> existence by proposal.
>>> 
>>> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me.
>>> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
>>> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians
>>> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not
>>> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
>>> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law,
>>> which I am also loathe to do.
>>> 
>>> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything
>>> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last
>>> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone
>>> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can
>>> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not
>>> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach.
>>> 
>>> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS
>>> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160
>>> is as follows:
>>> {{{
>>>A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an
>>>action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an
>>>office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the
>>>office, as long as
>>> 
>>>1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
>>>   other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and
>>> 
>>>2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
>>> is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation.
>>> 
>>>Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow
>>>special deputisation.
>>> 
>>>A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office,
>>>via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true:
>>> 
>>>1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
>>>   holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is
>>>   fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.
>>> 
>>>2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action
>>>   to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant.
>>> 
>>>3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned
>>>   time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the
>>>   deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e
>>>   intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the
>>>   particular action.
>>> 
>>>When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected
>>>office, e becomes the holder of that office.
>>> }}}
>>> 
>>> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to
>>> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point
>>> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this
>>> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this
>>> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans.
>>> 
>>> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being
>>> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order,
>>> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em
>>> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers
>>> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical
>>> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules
>>> that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a
>>> result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black
>>> Card is the only available punishment which will deny em 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[ATMunn]

by the way, does the deputisation end the election I initiated?

On 11/22/2017 2:20 PM, ATMunn wrote:

RIP VJ Rada.

I support.

On 11/22/2017 2:15 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:

As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that
fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse
of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with
the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this
scam taken from em.

As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As
far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another
officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to
award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from
sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons
to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of
existence by proposal.

I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me.
Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue
illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians
sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not
to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of
responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law,
which I am also loathe to do.

There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything
outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last
resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone
quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can
be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not
agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach.

First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS
mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160
is as follows:
{{{
   A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an
   action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an
   office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the
   office, as long as

   1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
  other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and

   2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
    is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation.

   Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow
   special deputisation.

   A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office,
   via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true:

   1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
  holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is
  fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.

   2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action
  to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant.

   3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned
  time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the
  deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e
  intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the
  particular action.

   When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected
   office, e becomes the holder of that office.
}}}

Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to
deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point
my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this
message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this
Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans.

Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being
reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order,
issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em
as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers
significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical
system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules
that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a
result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black
Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory.

Now, the above may seem IMPOSSIBLE, as Rule 2507 says that Black Cards
cannot be issued to players. However, it does not contain a claim of
precedence over other rules in this regard, and Rule 2451 authorizes me to
award any card to any player, using Dive. Given the lack of relevant
precedence claims in either rule, by Rule 1030, the rule with the lowest ID
number prevails. Thus, it is POSSIBLE for me to award a Black Card and the
precedence clause in Rule 2451 makes it LEGAL for me to do so.

I intend, 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

Especially scams on new big systems.

In my mind, it points to the age-old problem of watching the watchmen.

Every time we have criminal punishments, we either (a) have a cumbersome,
process-laden system of justice that drags things out to the point of
apathy (e.g. Agoran Consent for pledges).  Or (b) we have a Sheriff of
some kind that can insta-punish - and that power eventually results in a 
scam.  I'm not sure we've ever gotten the balance right (though a couple 
of the systems have gotten closer than this one).

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> I wouldn't even necessarily call you a "bad player," scams are a part of
> Agora. I think just about everyone here has at least tried one to some extent,
> some successful, some not. I haven't tried scamming a win (yet!) but I did
> scam a free stamp just yesterday.
> 
> On 11/22/2017 1:57 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> > yea don't award me a patent title for being a bad player. only diff
> > between me and cuddlebeam is that most of my scams are non-frivolous.
> > i mean if i won more than once (i have won once with the "with
> > objection" stuff), with stuff like this, maybe.
> > 
> > @aris: nah i'm actually cool w/ everything right now lmao. sorry for
> > swearing and stuff, know it's not agoran norm and all that. but yea
> > i'm totally fine.
> > 
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> > > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I pay V.J. Rada 10 shinies for the clever scam. H. Herald candidates,
> > > > would you consider giving out Scamster for this? I don't think e ever
> > > > actually won off a scam, but e's come close so many times that e
> > > > deserves the accolade.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Petard hoister.
> > > 
> > > Greetings,
> > > Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Corona]

What e said.

On 11/22/17, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> If I am elected Herald, I will attempt to award em the title of Scamster.
>
> On 11/22/2017 01:07 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> I support the intent to call in the pledge; or, if it was invalid,
>> intend with Agoran consent to call in the pledge. My basis for doing
>> so is that the notorious scamster E.E. Rafa has willfully intended,
>> contrived, and conspired (with emself; totally actual conspiracy) to
>> abuse eir official powers for personal gain, to defy a pledge of eir
>> own making, and to abuse a new game system in a destructive manner
>> without regard for the consequences.
>>
>> I pay V.J. Rada 10 shinies for the clever scam. H. Herald candidates,
>> would you consider giving out Scamster for this? I don't think e ever
>> actually won off a scam, but e's come close so many times that e
>> deserves the accolade.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:52 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't
>>> received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long.
>>> Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go
>>> through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE.
>>>
>>> CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY OUT
>>> OF EIR OWN SCAM
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
 I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
 fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
 agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
 similar)

 --
 From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>
> --
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[ATMunn]

I wouldn't even necessarily call you a "bad player," scams are a part of Agora. 
I think just about everyone here has at least tried one to some extent, some successful, 
some not. I haven't tried scamming a win (yet!) but I did scam a free stamp just 
yesterday.

On 11/22/2017 1:57 AM, VJ Rada wrote:

yea don't award me a patent title for being a bad player. only diff
between me and cuddlebeam is that most of my scams are non-frivolous.
i mean if i won more than once (i have won once with the "with
objection" stuff), with stuff like this, maybe.

@aris: nah i'm actually cool w/ everything right now lmao. sorry for
swearing and stuff, know it's not agoran norm and all that. but yea
i'm totally fine.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


I pay V.J. Rada 10 shinies for the clever scam. H. Herald candidates,
would you consider giving out Scamster for this? I don't think e ever
actually won off a scam, but e's come close so many times that e
deserves the accolade.



Petard hoister.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

If I am elected Herald, I will attempt to award em the title of Scamster.

On 11/22/2017 01:07 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I support the intent to call in the pledge; or, if it was invalid,
> intend with Agoran consent to call in the pledge. My basis for doing
> so is that the notorious scamster E.E. Rafa has willfully intended,
> contrived, and conspired (with emself; totally actual conspiracy) to
> abuse eir official powers for personal gain, to defy a pledge of eir
> own making, and to abuse a new game system in a destructive manner
> without regard for the consequences.
>
> I pay V.J. Rada 10 shinies for the clever scam. H. Herald candidates,
> would you consider giving out Scamster for this? I don't think e ever
> actually won off a scam, but e's come close so many times that e
> deserves the accolade.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:52 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't
>> received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long.
>> Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go
>> through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE.
>>
>> CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY OUT
>> OF EIR OWN SCAM
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
>>> fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
>>> agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
>>> similar)
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

I've actually been meaning to ask you this for a while Ørjan, and now
seems like a decent time to do so (i don't mean to be rude or w/e
obv). What's the story behind your watching of Agora? Because it seems
like you were around in like 1993 and have been watching quite
actively for several years? I actually don't know the story behind
that.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:
>
>> Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again
>
>
> But it's so fun to watch!
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:


Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again


But it's so fun to watch!

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

yea don't award me a patent title for being a bad player. only diff
between me and cuddlebeam is that most of my scams are non-frivolous.
i mean if i won more than once (i have won once with the "with
objection" stuff), with stuff like this, maybe.

@aris: nah i'm actually cool w/ everything right now lmao. sorry for
swearing and stuff, know it's not agoran norm and all that. but yea
i'm totally fine.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
>> I pay V.J. Rada 10 shinies for the clever scam. H. Herald candidates,
>> would you consider giving out Scamster for this? I don't think e ever
>> actually won off a scam, but e's come close so many times that e
>> deserves the accolade.
>
>
> Petard hoister.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


I pay V.J. Rada 10 shinies for the clever scam. H. Herald candidates,
would you consider giving out Scamster for this? I don't think e ever
actually won off a scam, but e's come close so many times that e
deserves the accolade.


Petard hoister.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Madeline]

(I should probably stop being a jerk, sorry)


On 2017-11-22 17:28, Madeline wrote:

Well you're not the referee anymore :3


On 2017-11-22 17:24, VJ Rada wrote:

I'm the referee, that would be illegal, I could card y'all etc.

obviously the correct play would have been to do this JUST before the
beginning of an agoran week. but the message seemingly STILL hasn't
sent, so that would have been hard.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Madeline  wrote:
In addition, any other favour-granting officer (such as me) could do 
EXACTLY

the same thing to stop you from becoming the advisor of anyone.



On 2017-11-22 17:04, VJ Rada wrote:

Expedition is still 7 day voting period! Balloons automatically are
created at the beginning of each agoran week (next monday). So it
would have worked.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Madeline  wrote:
For the record, it wouldn't have worked. None of favours, 
influence, or
advising are secured, and with the power of expedition we could 
get the

proposal through before you won on balloons.



On 2017-11-22 16:58, VJ Rada wrote:

i'm s pissed that i lost the easiest win in the history of
easy wins because of emails.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline  
wrote:

Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again



On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote:

Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't
received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very 
long.

Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go
through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE.

CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR 
WAY

OUT
OF EIR OWN SCAM

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada  
wrote:
I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully 
pointing 3,000
fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, 
with

agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
similar)

--
    From V.J. Rada




--
   From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Madeline]

Well you're not the referee anymore :3


On 2017-11-22 17:24, VJ Rada wrote:

I'm the referee, that would be illegal, I could card y'all etc.

obviously the correct play would have been to do this JUST before the
beginning of an agoran week. but the message seemingly STILL hasn't
sent, so that would have been hard.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Madeline  wrote:

In addition, any other favour-granting officer (such as me) could do EXACTLY
the same thing to stop you from becoming the advisor of anyone.



On 2017-11-22 17:04, VJ Rada wrote:

Expedition is still 7 day voting period! Balloons automatically are
created at the beginning of each agoran week (next monday). So it
would have worked.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Madeline  wrote:

For the record, it wouldn't have worked. None of favours, influence, or
advising are secured, and with the power of expedition we could get the
proposal through before you won on balloons.



On 2017-11-22 16:58, VJ Rada wrote:

i'm s pissed that i lost the easiest win in the history of
easy wins because of emails.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline  wrote:

Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again



On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote:

Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't
received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long.
Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go
through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE.

CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY
OUT
OF EIR OWN SCAM

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
similar)

--
From V.J. Rada




--
   From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

you know what else? you know what the hell else?

this is one day before i would have got a green ribbon for referee.
ugh. most of my horrible scam attempts are come up with on my really
boring busride home, maybe i should take up drawing or something.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:24 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> I'm the referee, that would be illegal, I could card y'all etc.
>
> obviously the correct play would have been to do this JUST before the
> beginning of an agoran week. but the message seemingly STILL hasn't
> sent, so that would have been hard.
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Madeline  wrote:
>> In addition, any other favour-granting officer (such as me) could do EXACTLY
>> the same thing to stop you from becoming the advisor of anyone.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2017-11-22 17:04, VJ Rada wrote:
>>>
>>> Expedition is still 7 day voting period! Balloons automatically are
>>> created at the beginning of each agoran week (next monday). So it
>>> would have worked.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Madeline  wrote:

 For the record, it wouldn't have worked. None of favours, influence, or
 advising are secured, and with the power of expedition we could get the
 proposal through before you won on balloons.



 On 2017-11-22 16:58, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> i'm s pissed that i lost the easiest win in the history of
> easy wins because of emails.
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline  wrote:
>>>
>>> Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote:

 Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't
 received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long.
 Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go
 through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE.

 CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY
 OUT
 OF EIR OWN SCAM

 On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>
> I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
> fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
> agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
> similar)
>
> --
>From V.J. Rada



>>
>> --
>>   From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

I'm the referee, that would be illegal, I could card y'all etc.

obviously the correct play would have been to do this JUST before the
beginning of an agoran week. but the message seemingly STILL hasn't
sent, so that would have been hard.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Madeline  wrote:
> In addition, any other favour-granting officer (such as me) could do EXACTLY
> the same thing to stop you from becoming the advisor of anyone.
>
>
>
> On 2017-11-22 17:04, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> Expedition is still 7 day voting period! Balloons automatically are
>> created at the beginning of each agoran week (next monday). So it
>> would have worked.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Madeline  wrote:
>>>
>>> For the record, it wouldn't have worked. None of favours, influence, or
>>> advising are secured, and with the power of expedition we could get the
>>> proposal through before you won on balloons.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-11-22 16:58, VJ Rada wrote:

 i'm s pissed that i lost the easiest win in the history of
 easy wins because of emails.

 On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>
> i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here.
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline  wrote:
>>
>> Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't
>>> received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long.
>>> Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go
>>> through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE.
>>>
>>> CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY
>>> OUT
>>> OF EIR OWN SCAM
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

 I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
 fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
 agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
 similar)

 --
From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
>   From V.J. Rada



>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Madeline]

It's not even that clever, we talked about it before the proposal was 
officially submitted and agreed that as it would never actually work, 
hopefully no one would waste their time attempting it.
I support the intent to call in the pledge, as fingers were indeed 
pointed explicitly contrary to the pledge, and with the intent of 
personal gain no less.



On 2017-11-22 17:07, Aris Merchant wrote:

I support the intent to call in the pledge; or, if it was invalid,
intend with Agoran consent to call in the pledge. My basis for doing
so is that the notorious scamster E.E. Rafa has willfully intended,
contrived, and conspired (with emself; totally actual conspiracy) to
abuse eir official powers for personal gain, to defy a pledge of eir
own making, and to abuse a new game system in a destructive manner
without regard for the consequences.

I pay V.J. Rada 10 shinies for the clever scam. H. Herald candidates,
would you consider giving out Scamster for this? I don't think e ever
actually won off a scam, but e's come close so many times that e
deserves the accolade.

-Aris

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:52 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't
received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long.
Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go
through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE.

CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY OUT
OF EIR OWN SCAM

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
similar)

--
 From V.J. Rada



--
 From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Madeline]

In addition, any other favour-granting officer (such as me) could do 
EXACTLY the same thing to stop you from becoming the advisor of anyone.



On 2017-11-22 17:04, VJ Rada wrote:

Expedition is still 7 day voting period! Balloons automatically are
created at the beginning of each agoran week (next monday). So it
would have worked.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Madeline  wrote:

For the record, it wouldn't have worked. None of favours, influence, or
advising are secured, and with the power of expedition we could get the
proposal through before you won on balloons.



On 2017-11-22 16:58, VJ Rada wrote:

i'm s pissed that i lost the easiest win in the history of
easy wins because of emails.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline  wrote:

Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again



On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote:

Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't
received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long.
Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go
through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE.

CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY OUT
OF EIR OWN SCAM

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
similar)

--
   From V.J. Rada





--
  From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

Expedition is still 7 day voting period! Balloons automatically are
created at the beginning of each agoran week (next monday). So it
would have worked.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Madeline  wrote:
> For the record, it wouldn't have worked. None of favours, influence, or
> advising are secured, and with the power of expedition we could get the
> proposal through before you won on balloons.
>
>
>
> On 2017-11-22 16:58, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> i'm s pissed that i lost the easiest win in the history of
>> easy wins because of emails.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline  wrote:

 Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again



 On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't
> received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long.
> Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go
> through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE.
>
> CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY OUT
> OF EIR OWN SCAM
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
>> fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
>> agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
>> similar)
>>
>> --
>>   From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>  From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Madeline]

For the record, it wouldn't have worked. None of favours, influence, or 
advising are secured, and with the power of expedition we could get the 
proposal through before you won on balloons.



On 2017-11-22 16:58, VJ Rada wrote:

i'm s pissed that i lost the easiest win in the history of
easy wins because of emails.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline  wrote:

Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again



On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote:

Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't
received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long.
Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go
through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE.

CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY OUT
OF EIR OWN SCAM

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
similar)

--
  From V.J. Rada






--
 From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

i'm s pissed that i lost the easiest win in the history of
easy wins because of emails.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here.
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline  wrote:
>> Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't
>>> received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long.
>>> Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go
>>> through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE.
>>>
>>> CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY OUT
>>> OF EIR OWN SCAM
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

 I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
 fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
 agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
 similar)

 --
  From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[VJ Rada]

i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline  wrote:
> Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again
>
>
>
> On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't
>> received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long.
>> Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go
>> through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE.
>>
>> CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY OUT
>> OF EIR OWN SCAM
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
>>> fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
>>> agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
>>> similar)
>>>
>>> --
>>>  From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Madeline]

Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again


On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote:

Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't
received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long.
Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go
through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE.

CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY OUT
OF EIR OWN SCAM

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000
fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with
agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or
similar)

--
 From V.J. Rada