On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:43 PM Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> CFJ 3473 is "On or around 05-Jan-17 08:07:23 UTC, o caused Agora to pay
> 10 Shinies to G.", called by G.. Because this CFJ is not currently
> online, I reproduce the relevant discussion below:
> {{{
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017, 15:36 Aris Merchant, <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Jan 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >> there's nothing that says the "plus 10" can't be in a separate later
> message,
> > >> or that you can't do partial awards in general, as long as you get it
> all in
> > >> within 7 days. For example, which of the following work, or don't
> work:
> > >
> > > Relevant addition. This clause:
> > >> If Agora's Balance becomes 0 or less before every player is paid,
> > >> the Secretary SHALL continue to cause Agora to pay until every
> > >> player has been paid.
> > >
> > > on one hand implies that a single message with all transfers doesn't
> fail
> > > because Agora runs out of money halfway through the message
> execution. On
> > > the other hand, it implies that the Secretary's duties may be partially
> > > satisfied and still work ("continue to cause", implying that it's a
> set of
> > > separable transfers, that can be interrupted and re-started).
> >
> > I tend to be of the opinion that partial paying succeeds. It seems to
> > be that generally when you authorize someone to pay out a certain
> > amount of money, you also implicitly authorize them to pay out less
> > than that amount. The authorization and the obligation are separate,
> > so it should work. Even if that isn't so, the rule doesn't say
> > anything about it all being required to happen in one message (as G.
> > says), although accepting the latter without the former leads to the
> > somewhat surprising conclusion that payments can retroactively fail
> > (or, more sanely, that the payment is not final until complete). It
> > would be interesting to see how a CFJ would go though.
> >
> > What does everyone think about making this an automatic transaction,
> > which the Secretary merely obliged to report it, perhaps in a self
> > ratifying way? It would avoid this problem, and not enough things
> > happen platonically. Oh, and just to mention the other proposed
> > solution, I think a CoE would fail (payment happens once, except
> > possibly with credit systems).
> }}}
> I remove Alexis as judge of this case, and assign it to Quazie.
>
>
I judge CFJ 3473 as TRUE.
Thankfully this judgment doesn't change the world in any appreciable way,
as all of the relevant reports have been ratified.
Also note: There are many more gratuitous arguments from o that are
relevant, but Grammatical rules take precedence when using english words,
and that is where
The rule, at the time stated:
> At the start of each month, if Agora's Balance is not 0 or less,
> the Secretary SHALL, within 7 days, cause Agora to pay each player
> 10 shinies, plus another 10 shinies for each office that player
> holds.
There are two interpretations here, and it boils down to what the word
`plus` means.
If the word plus implies addition, then I agree with o's interpretation,
and the Secretary would only only be allowed to pay the exact total of 10 +
officer salary:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:43 PM Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
> If paying is a regulated action under rule 2125, then only the
following payments work:
>
> - A valid payment by a player to any player, to any organization, or
to Agora, and
> - A payday payment by Agora, to any player, for exactly their payday
amount.
BUT if the word is used as a conjunction then the rule gave the secretary 2
seperate duties:
1 - Pay each player 10 shinies.
2 - Pay each player 10 shinies for each office that player holds.
Given the wording of the rule at the time, specifically the comma before
the word plus, I am left to interpret the word `plus` as a synonym for the
word `and` as the comma only makes sense if the word plus is a conjunction.
It's left as an exercise for the reader to determine if any of the grouped
payments (Player + Officer Salary) made around this time were valid, though
it's of this judges opinion that grouping the payments likely would've been
valid as well.
