[BNomic-Public] Third

[Daniel Lepage]

On Sep 16, 2004, at 8.18 AM, Araltaln wrote:

> 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.

One example would be the Societies fiasco, when a rule said that 
societies could require players to do things and it was judged that 
this empowered those players to do whatever the society required them 
to do. There were a bunch of CFIs about this, and lots of arguing and 
attempted scams. Those were the days.

Anyway, my argument holds up even if you don't believe this point, as 
1583.A.1 says I can perform the duty, and performing the duty requires 
that I call elections for all free ministries.

>> 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).

As was previously mentioned, r1583.A.1 explicitly permits me to do what 
I have to to perform a duty.

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

No it's not. Rule 497 is another one of those rules that describes a 
method for doing something without specifying that that's the only way 
to do it. Some rules are divided into what r497 calls 'subsections'; 
others simply have letters, numbers, and other such things inserted to 
make the rule more readable. These are also 'subsections', they're just 
subsections under the standard english definition, not under the 
definition given by the rules (which, it would seem, is a different 
word).

-- 
Wonko

Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty.
                 -- Plato