Am I missing an angle, or was Trigon choosing to represent Bananasoft on the 29th illegal? This company was already being represented by Zaphod, and a newly acquired Client “must not be a non-State Client who is already represented by any other Attorney”.
BlogNomic is an online Nomic: a self-modifying game where changing the rules is part of the game. Players make blog posts proposing additions or alterations to the ruleset, discussing and casting votes in the comments: if enough vote in favour, the rules are changed and play continues.
The game has been running since 2003 and resets every month or so. Have a look around the wiki for more information and history. New players are always welcome and can join in the game at any time.
BlogNomic is powered by pMachine ExpressionEngine.
Comments
naught:
It is illegal. You may notice that Trigon has also chosen to represent Benjamin and edelopo X Express, both also illegal actions.
naught:
It might be worth having a CoJ about it, but probably not, seeing that pokes’ Proposal amending the Appendix has passed.
Kevan: he/him
I think those are legal (as is my representation of Morgan); an Attorney can take on an idle Attorney’s client because “For the purposes of all Gamestate and the Ruleset, [...] Idle Attorneys are not counted as Attorneys.” - the “already represented by any other Attorney” check returns a “no”, as those people aren’t Attorneys.
naught:
Ah. Forgot about the Core rules there. Forgive my ignorance.
edelopo:
I agree with the original call out, but indeed I hold that my action was legal (I did an illegal one before that and pokes pointed it out for me).
Trigon:
I just realized this thread exists and would like to publicly apologize to anyone who reads this. Somehow during my many readings of the rule text I missed the “not”. I thought it was strange that there was no “not”, but I was just following the rules as I thought they were written.