Call for Judgment: Envy
CfJ passes with a quorum of FOR votes (currently 6). Enacted by Elias IX
Adminned at 14 Oct 2015 02:30:51 UTC
I claim that ayesdeeef’s increase in Benefices via setting other Cardinals’ Vices to Superbia is illegal.
According to the Ruleset, we have the following:
If a Cardinal has no Vice, they may set their own Vice to one of the options listed below at any time; this is called choosing a Vice.
Superbia - A Cardinal may not choose Superbia as their Vice if they are a Papabile. Upon choosing Superbia, the Cardinal gains one Benefice.
Invidia - A Cardinal may not choose Invidia as their Vice if they have any Benefices. As a Daily Action, a Cardinal whose Vice is Invidia may target a Cardinal who does not currently have a Vice, and set that Cardinal’s Vice to any of the options in this list. They may not use this action to set a Vice that the targeted Cardinal would not normally be able to choose.
In the Ruleset, “choosing a Vice” is unambiguously defined as setting their own Vice to one of the listed options at any time, if they do not have a Vice.
Because the powers invoked by Invidia do not cause the target to set their own vice, that act cannot be called “choosing”, and thus no Benefice shall be granted to either party.
If this CfJ passes, then decrease ayesdeeef’s Benefices by the number of Cardinals whose Vice ayesdeeef has set to Superbia. If ayesdeeef at any time made game actions that depend on the successful granting of Benefices when he set other Cardinal’s vices to Superbia (e.g. decreasing another Cardinal’s influence because ayesdeeef had 4 or more Benefices, bequeathing Benefices to other Cardinals, etc.), revert all of those game actions.
If a quorum of EVC’s also include the string “Tabula rasa”, reset the Vice of all Cardinals whose Vice ayesdeeef has set to Superbia to the default value.
ayesdeeef:
“If a Cardinal has no Vice, they may set their own Vice to one of the options listed below at any time; this is called choosing a Vice.”
“As a Daily Action, a Cardinal whose Vice is Invidia may target a Cardinal who does not currently have a Vice, and set that Cardinal’s Vice to any of the options in this list.”
1) Sure, the Rule doesn’t cause the Target to set their own Vice per se, but I found a loophole that allows me to set the Target’s own vice. Per Blognomic precedent, literal interpretations of the Ruleset are always preferred.
2) The usage of the word “this” is ambiguous. For example, I am clearly not target whose Vice is being changed, yet I am allowed to set that target’s Vice as they would be allowed to do so their self. The main idea is the setting of the Vice, and that is what constitutes the act of choosing. Choose is defined as “pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives”.
3) The usage of the word “own” does not imply the self as an actor. Make Elias IX show that the word “own” puts a special burden on me to be the target of the action.
4) Own can be used in British English to signify emphasis “He broke me own leg with his bare hands!” Elias IX, being the accuser, has the positive burden of proof. Make him show that the wording of the Ruleset unambiguously delegitimizes my actions.
5) In setting the Target’s Vice, the Vice does indeed belong to the target and therefore is the target’s “own” Vice. Elias IX has not clarified why the fact that an outside entity is doing the choosing changes the fact that the target’s “own” Vice is in fact what is being changed. This is perhaps the most critical response on my side, so don’t let Elias skirt around it.
6) I had done this before and nobody challenged it, thus setting a precedent for a certain interpretation of the Ruleset. It seems abusive to allow Elias IX to CfJ on this matter only when it benefits him, and thereby indicates a special interest in the case of justice that I find dangerous.