Would this be Legal?

[IdioC]

Out of curiosity, why not just write "parties cannot be transferred," then, if that was the intent? Why word it this way, when "vibisilities and positions" cannot be transferred in any way except metaphorically by the transfer of a party outright? Why not just say "Parties cannot be transferred?"

The intention was to show that we couldn't transfer one individual aspect of the visibility or positions in the system (we did get requests on occasion) as well as prohibiting it outright.

Pax Cynica was essentially a first attempt at codifying rules that were "accepted" by the community but newbies had no idea of knowing immediately. A lot of it was written at obscenely late hours and probing this situation (which I clearly forgot to consider sufficiently at the time of writing PaxCyn) just brought some holes in it to my attention.

Again, I'm not criticising the decision made here on its own merits, just suggesting a rule could be interpreted as going against and that I've come to realise some exploitable mistakes in my previous work that it would be in the game's interest to rectify. Sorry for any frustration it might cause (I imagine it is quite).

The rules need to evolve to accept new developments and ideas such as this, while I'm not in a position to impose those changes anymore.

It's my errors and oversights at fault in the codex here, not one of yours in judgement; all I can do is point out historical cases, contradictions with Pax Cynica and any of my own mistakes within.

[Aquinas]

IdioC, if you're not a lawyer, then you should consider training to become one .

Personally, I'm not too keen on players transferring inactive parties to one another. It makes it too easy to get a "head start" in a nation you don't have any history in.

Captain Socialist was granted permission to reactivate another player's inactive party in a nation where a party was committed to using the "early election tactic" in order to maintain one party dominance. For clarity, may I ask the Mods whether this was a factor in their decision to allow CS to reactivate Polites' party? CS's original post and Valdstejn's reply don't make any mention of this, but maybe there was some discussion "behind the scenes" which we didn't see.

[TheNewGuy]

Captain Socialist was granted permission to reactivate another player's inactive party in a nation where a party had been using the "early election tactic" to maintain one party dominance. For clarity, may I ask the Mods whether this was a factor in their decision to permit CS to reactivate Polites' party? CS's original post and Valdstejn's reply don't make any mention of this, but maybe there was some discussion "behind the scenes" which we didn't see.

No, this was done primarily because it has been previously allowed to be done. This is not all that rare an occurrence, I think, as I can recall 2 or 3 cases where it was done prior to my becoming a mod, and never ruled illegal. I think the difference here is that this time CS asked for permission, allowing former mods like IdioC to come forward with what he has.

CS being allowed to use another player's party in this instance had nothing to do with my own use of the early election lockout, but instead was due to the fact that this has never really been questioned previously.

[Aquinas]

Thanks for that, TNG. This means, then, that generally speaking, players can receive permission to hand over inactive parties to each other as they please. I had wondered whether a special exception was made just for one-party dictatorship situations, but obviously not.

[Valdštejn]

As long as the party was inactivated, it can be transferred. This has happened in the past as well, TNG is right there, and it's no precedence we're creating here. It has happened both publically and with only the mods and the affected parties knowing. As for visibilities, I don't see why they shouldn't be transferred as well - if they are there, then they are there because of the work of the player now transferring the party. So they have been worked for, and if the player agrees to transferring his party and thus his work, I don't see a problem with it. With positions it's essentially the same. The only problem I could see is if some player makes a party and plays with the intent of just playing it to get to a certain position, and then pass it on to another player. But that's what I would see as party sitting, which allows us to just not ok the transfer.
So, concluding: While the Pax Cyinca rules about positions and visibilities should be changed, this has been done in the past (also since the introduction of the Pax), and as long as there's no malicious intent, it will be allowed.

[IdioC]

Sounds good, but get Pax updated to reflect the position that has evolved since.