I claim the reward of 1 shiny for this report. I pledge to transfer
all shinies I receive before my next deregistration to the first
non-Alexis person who pledges that they will use 90% of the shinies I
transfer em in accordance with the instructions of myself acting from
the email address vijar...@gmail.com.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:16 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I start with this CFJ's facts. On October 4, o. initiated an auction
> for the Estate of Dawsburgen. On October 10, G. bid 1010 shinies on
> this auction. It is undisputed that e is the winner of the auction
> under rule 2491 (Estate Auctions) . Eir win of this auction therefore
> triggers the third paragraph of that rule, which states
> "The player who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a
> timely fashion, cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to
> the winner by announcement, by paying Agora the amount of
> the bid, or by causing the winning Organization to pay Agora
> the amount of the bid.".
>
> The question here is did G. transfer emself the Estate of Dawsburgen
> by eir announcement on Oct 13, or must e pay the winning amount of
> Shinies to gain control of Dawsburgen?
>
> In CFJ 3533, Judge omd noted that "We don't usually write "A or B or
> C". When all the clauses start with "if", we do sometimes write "if A,
> or if B, or if C", but "if A, if B, or if C" is still grammatical and
> common.". This is a similar case. The list given here provides three
> methods of transferring an Estate to oneself: by announcement, by
> transferring one's own Shinies, or by transferring an organisation's
> Shinies. And it uses the "by A, by B, or by C" format. If someone
> asked you to transport their piano "by plane, by boat, or by train",
> it would be clear that you would not have to somehow put a train ON a
> plane. If someone told you "You have to win this game by brute force,
> by skill, or by luck", it would be clear that you could use any of the
> three methods.
>
> However, imagine you were asked to see a performance "at Seaworld, at
> 6am or at 8pm". It is similarly clear in such a case that their
> performance would occur only at Seaworld, and not in any other place.
> What if somebody asked you to win a fight "by any means necessary, by
> luck, by brute force, or by skill". It is clear that that person would
> always expect you to use any means necessary. The difference comes
> from the nature of the first clause. In the later two examples, the
> first clause is general and followed by a list of specific examples or
> limiting items. Is the list at issue in this CFJ similar to the later
> two examples? Arguably so, yes. Near every action in the Agoran
> ruleset must be done "by announcement". It seems quite reasonable to
> interpret the text at issue here the same as the two examples in this
> paragraph, with the transfer of Shinies limiting the general "by
> announcement". Does this trigger the game factors analysis?
>
> It does not. The inclusion of an Oxford comma makes this case quite
> clear. An Oxford comma, of course, is a comma "used after the
> penultimate item in a list of three or more items, before ‘and’ or
> ‘or’". In the text at issue here, there is a comma before the "or" in
> "by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or by causing the winning
> Organization to pay Agora the amount of the bid.". This comma is
> grammatical under G's interpretation because eir interpretation
> provides for a three-item list. Under the other interpretation, the
> list of the two methods would be two items, and the comma makes no
> sense. Under real-world legal traditions, it is certainly within a
> judge's power to detect and correct small punctuation errors that
> produce odd results. In the Agoran tradition, it is not. See rule 217
> ("the text of the rules takes precedence") and several CFJs (eg CFJ
> 3548, which refused to apply the obviously intended effects of the
> Dependent Actions rules because the text commanded otherwise). The
> text here clearly indicates that an auction winner may transfer an
> Estate to emself by announcement.
>
> For the above reasons, I rule CFJ 3575 is TRUE
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
--
>From V.J. Rada
