[BNomic-Public] Third

[Araltaln]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:55:20 -0400, Daniel Lepage <dpl33@cornell.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Sep 15, 2004, at 10.46 AM, Araltaln wrote:
> > Note: I can't assign a Judge at random without being able to see a
> > list of those persons in the Upper House. And, to my knowledge, the
> > only such list is on the Wiki.
> 
> http://www.bnomic.org/wiki/ stores the list as it was a few nweeks ago;
> if it hasn't changed much, then you can use this.

Er. I continue to fail to assign a Judge to the yet-to-be-numbered CFI
previously submitted. And I declare my intent to enter the Upper
House.

> Note: The following past precedents relate to this case:
> 1) Past use of ministries and deputies confirms that when the rules
> state "player X is responsible for doing Y", it is implicit in this
> that player X is empowered to do Y (indeed, some Ministries, and my own
> deputyship and thus the game, would be rendered completely
> nonfunctional under the current rules were this otherwise).

Would you provide an example of a responsibility that requires one or
more actions that alter the game's state whose powers have not been
granted somewhere, besides this one, please? You are specifically
empowered, not just given responsibility, as a Deputy, and nearly all
current Ministries only require the maintaining of displays about the
game state, without actually changing the game state. You have in some
cases granted additional responsibilities to players (I'm an example,
even if I can't do what I'm supposed to do right now), but by making
them limited Deputies still, which still specifies empowerment.

> 2) Former CFIs have supported the interpretation that a rule saying
> "players may do X if Y is true" should not be interpreted to forbid
> players from doing X when Y is false when another rule allows X to be
> done.

True. However, 1583 is not granting you the right to call an Election
(nor is any other rule after your first iteration), and so 393 forbids
it (it changes the game state to do so).

Is this the wrong time to point out that the Ministries rule as it
currently stands is in direct violation of Rule 497?

--Araltaln