Friday, January 04, 2019

Bunching Up

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”.

Comments

naught:

01-04-2019 14:27:50 UTC

It is illegal. You may notice that Trigon has also chosen to represent Benjamin and edelopo X Express, both also illegal actions.

naught:

01-04-2019 14:34:22 UTC

It might be worth having a CoJ about it, but probably not, seeing that pokes’ Proposal amending the Appendix has passed.

Kevan:

01-04-2019 15:30:54 UTC

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:

01-04-2019 17:10:34 UTC

Ah. Forgot about the Core rules there. Forgive my ignorance.

edelopo:

01-05-2019 02:38:48 UTC

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:

01-13-2019 22:46:19 UTC

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.

You must be registered and logged in to post comments.