It was certainly legal for ais to create and take control of the corp. Reverting those against his will seems needless. Reverting the hybrid shareholder meeting / proposal would be wise, though, as well as closing the sort-of loophole that allowed it.

Ais could always start another Corp via another startup post.  It could even be with the same name.  But putting the reset this far back has the added benefit of refunding Rouju as well.

There’s that…

I’m pretty sure the scam works (even if there’s currently a proposal in the pipeline to stop it).

Actually ais couldn’t create a new startup until next week, as this reverts his action rather causing it to have never been done…

I can’t find any rule that was violated.

As for Ruojo, I guess he’s paying the penalty for being the patsy in a failed victory scam… That’s the kind of disincentive that I’m not sure should be undercut :)

To quote PB, “the effects of a proposal are only carried out if it passes. The approval of a shareholder meeting is a seperate process, and has the limitation that it can only carry out the events specified in one of the subrules.”

This tells me that even though the post was both a shareholder meeting and a proposal, the effect still came from the shareholder meeting part of it and therefore the scam was not legal.

explicit author FOR

Also, the week ends tomorrow, so ais would only have to wait a day to make another startup.  This may not even pass until then anyways.

@Yoda: but it is a proposal! The rule didn’t say “by the enactment of a proposal”; if it had, there wouldn’t be a scam.

COV

to try to help clear the queue

I encourage everyone to vote this, given my arguments on the DoV.  My basic argument is that “any means other than by Proposal” does not mean “any means other than by a Proposal.”

@Bucky: Nor does it mean “any means other than by the enactment of a Proposal”.

Rule 1.2 uses the same wording.  That doesn’t mean that if you make a proposal to remove me from my Admin post, it would work without being enacted.

True. By that interpretation, that would be . (CoV)

@Bucky: That’s because nothing causes random posts to apply their effects to the gamestate. (Becoming a player doesn’t require a proposal, and doesn’t have any matching wording; but if I made a proposal to make Hilary Clinton a player, it wouldn’t work without being enacted either, just because there’s no rule that lets non-enacted proposals change the gamestate.) So that’s a red herring. The Business Plan change happened because there was a rule that allowed posts to make it happen, and happened immediately because the post that made it happen was a proposal.

@ais523: After reviewing the play… I think I side with Bucky. Something that can only happen “by Proposal” is something that can only happen /because/ of a Proposal, and Proposal can only cause stuff to happen by enactment. Saying that a Proposal can change Gamestate without passing would be a dangerous precedent, IMO.

@Roujo: that’s not what I said at all. A proposal can change gamestate without passing, if it could do so without being a proposal, because another rule allows it to do so. Imagine the following hypothetical rule: “If a woman posts a sentence with 6 words in as a blog post, Bucky gains 10 points.” Suppose a woman (who is not currently a player) posts “I want to become a player”, then request to become a player would make her a player (when an admin got around to it), and also award Bucky 10 points. This doesn’t mean that requests to become a player can, in general, give people points, any more than it means that proposals can, in general, cause stuff to happen without being enacted. It’s only the existence of a separate rule that allows such things to happen.

@ais523: Rule 2.2.1 states: “If a Business Plan would be changed by any means other than by Proposal”. I don’t believe something happening by something else while also being a Proposal is something happening “by Proposal”.

Rule 2.2.1 is very specific on the subject; “by Proposal” refers to the means, not the instrument.

Basically, the argument here comes down to the definition of “by Proposal”.  Proponents of the scam claim it means “an effect that came from the proposal’s post” whereas the opponents claim it means “an effect generated by the enactment of a proposal”.  It’s a subtly difference but one that determines whether all of the actions leading up to my DoV were legal or illegal.

CoV per bucky