Daniel Lepage on 3 Oct 2003 21:27:06 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 50 BALLOT

On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 12:11 AM, Glotmorf wrote:

That's not what it says; the part you're thinking of is in the
definition of Activity (r154/23.B.3.) where it states that a player's
Activity goes up at the end of each nweek if e voted on the ballot
using at least one non-proxied vote.

True...though it references the end of the nweek, so by that
time the vote is considered to have been cast by the player.

Anyway, I maintain my agreement that there's no conflict.

I'm not convinced; It seems to me that any action which results in a situation prohibited by the rules must be illegal. Since casting votes in somebody else's name creates votes considered to have been cast by that player, it creates a situation that is considered to be illegal; which isn't possible.

Interesting note: r154.B.3 references "voluntary leave", but
such is not defined elsewhere in the ruleset, especially
considering a player is, according to r205, a player is placed
both on leave and on forced leave if eir activity goes down
for long enough.

So without a proper definition of "voluntary leave", does that
mean the Activity of players who are on leave should go down?

I think we can assume from context that a player is on 'voluntary leave' if they went on leave voluntarily, and I hope that a judge would feel the same way. I don't think we should have to define every term we use, as long as the justice system works.


spoon-discuss mailing list