Saturday, October 29, 2011

Call for Judgment: False Unemployment

Any CfJ that has no effect on the ruleset or gamestate may be automatically failed by any admin. ~~Chronos Phaenon

Adminned at 30 Oct 2011 18:50:03 UTC

Some players are currently trying to exploit a non-existant loophole, by falsely reducing their SPs from 1 to 1 and turning back into being a Free Agent.

To avoid that, change the text:

Any Employed player may, at any time, change their Employment to Free Agent by reducing their SP by 1, to a minimum of 1, increasing the SP of the player listed under their Employment by 1 and then changing their Employment to Free Agent.

into

Any Employed Player whose SP is greater than 1 may, at any time, change their Employment to Free Agent by reducing their SP by 1, increasing the SP of the player listed under their Employment by 1 and then changing their own Employment to Free Agent.

Reverse any actions done under the presumption that there is a loophole allowing players to falsely reduce their SPs from 1 to 1 and turn back into being a Free Agent.

 

Comments

arthexis:

10-29-2011 17:24:12 UTC

for

scshunt:

10-29-2011 17:24:39 UTC

against because I think it is a valid loophole and actions done under it should not be reversed.

Amnistar:

10-29-2011 17:57:55 UTC

for If your SP is 1, and you reduce it by 1, it’s 0, it’s not 1, so you can’t reduce your SP by 1 to a minimum of 1.  It’s not a loophole.

for

Bucky:

10-29-2011 17:58:11 UTC

for

ChronosPhaenon:

10-29-2011 18:00:41 UTC

for Explicit vote.

ais523:

10-29-2011 18:15:47 UTC

for (and I think I mentioned these problems earlier).

Murphy:

10-29-2011 18:26:24 UTC

for per Amnistar

SingularByte:

10-29-2011 18:32:24 UTC

for

southpointingchariot:

10-29-2011 18:34:36 UTC

for

Pavitra:

10-29-2011 18:48:24 UTC

for

omd:

10-29-2011 19:39:57 UTC

for , but it is a real loophole

omd:

10-29-2011 19:42:10 UTC

(If it was 2, and you reduce it by 2 to a minimum of 1, you set it to 1, even though 2 - 2 = 0.  Same for reducing 1 by 1.)

ChronosPhaenon:

10-29-2011 19:44:03 UTC

Comex, in that case, you’d have reduced it by 1, not by 2, and would have still failed to reduce it by 2.

Ornithopter:

10-29-2011 23:41:41 UTC

for

lazerchik:

10-30-2011 01:19:28 UTC

for

Spitemaster:

10-30-2011 02:02:51 UTC

for

omd:

10-30-2011 02:20:28 UTC

Chronos, if that’s true, such an action could not be taken at all; but I remember more than one instance of “reduce by X to a minimum of Y” in BN history, such as the no-proposal penalization clause from the last Dynasty.

Amnistar:

10-30-2011 03:10:20 UTC

Comes: Exactly, if the action requires you to reduce by X to a minimum of Y, and X is less than or equal to Y, you cannot take that action.

flurie:

10-30-2011 03:39:51 UTC

for

Darknight:

10-30-2011 05:31:01 UTC

for

Moriarty:

10-30-2011 12:08:20 UTC

for

Prince Anduril:

10-30-2011 12:36:40 UTC

for

Ely:

10-30-2011 18:34:22 UTC

against