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

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

--
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss