[BNomic-Public] Checkpointly Recognizer

[Jeremy Cook]

On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 09:44:43AM -0500, Araltaln wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:00:44 -0400, Daniel Lepage <dpl33@cornell.edu> wrote:
> > I would rather see this done slightly differently: I think if the
> > duty-filler has to do something, e should be implicitly empowered to do
> > it as well. I also think that rather than stopping people from doing a
> > duty more than once per nweek, it'd make more sense to stop them from
> > getting paid for doing it more than once per nweek.
> 
> Explicitly empowered, please--you've seen the headaches new players
> can try to cause when they run up against things that aren't spelled
> out but all the oldbies understand.
> 

Yes, definitely. The whole point of Dutifully was to remove the implicit
granting of Powers that Duties seem to give Players.

We should allow for explicitly empowering, though. I change "Dutifully"
to the following:

{{__Dutifully__

Add the following to the Ruleset as r1583.A.4:

"If a Duty consists of performing one or more Actions, merely performing
those Actions is not performing the Duty unless the entity performing
the Actions states explicitly that e is performing the Duty. No player
may perform a Duty more than once an nweek. To perform a Duty, a player
must be able to perform the Actions it consists of regardless of whether
or not e is performing the Duty, unless the Duty explicitly empowers
Players to perform Actions."

Call an election for all unoccupied Ministries with Godel as the
Moderator and Approval Voting as the Selection Method.
}}

There's no duplication between the Minister rule and the Duties rule:
the Minister rule allows players to call elections, and the Duty rule
states that those actions can be done as a Duty under certain
circumstances.

Wonko, if you want to go ahead with the elections you called during this
week, all right. You're the Moderator, since you called them.

> > Which records, exactly? If you want to know who's in the upper house, I
> > believe nobody is. Judging by my email records (I have just over a
> > year's worth), the Upper House as it currently exists was created by
> > p1891 at the end of nweek 67. I didn't have the foresight to include in
> > this prop a clause putting some people in the Upper House, so nobody's
> > an eligible judge right now.

The records I was referring to are the spoon-business archives since I
last updated the Roster. My email records are long gone.

> In any event, the Roster ceased recognizing the existence of the Upper
> House, let alone the fact that it had members, before the latest
> revisions to CFIs--even if it's not considered to have been recreated,
> unless someone with the power to do so'd like to declare otherwise
> (and furnish a list of the current members of the Upper House :P),
> it's empty until the end of the nweek. As Attorney Generalist I'd also
> like to point out that if I still don't have any Eligible Judges for
> my CFI at the start of next nweek I may be forced to do something
> drastic. And if my CFI remains unnumbered until the next Checkpoint,
> I'll be very unhappy. (Could someone remind me if I'm supposed to be
> doing this in general? I /can't/ in this case I know, Rule 5.
> "Identification numbers for Calls for Judgment cannot be specified by
> the Players creating them." [Plus I could argue, if I am Deputized to
> handle that, that that information should've been on the Roster, and
> the Roster hasn't had that either, except I imagine Wonko would rather
> quickly point out that e prevented the effect without telling us.])

Wonko is supposed to number them, as the Deputy Admin. (r5)

I declare my intention to enter the Upper House. Araltaln, Wonko, and I
will join at the end of the nweek.

Zarpint