I think you intended to assign a CFJ to yourself about 8 days ago, G. Should probably do so.
I intend to assign this CFJ to myself without 3 objections. On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > I find Shenanigans. Since the zombie act-on-behalf rule means > Corona CANNOT cause Quazie to perform illegal actions: > -If the bid was illegal, it failed and no crime was commited; > -If the bid was legal, no crime was committed. > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: >> I point my finger at Corona for violations of Rule 2532, "Zombies", >> and/or Rule 2466, "Acting on Behalf", committed by causing Quazie to >> violate Rule 2550, "Bidding". I CFJ, barring G., on the statement >> 'Rule 2532, "Zombies", enables zombie owners to act on behalf of their >> zombies.' I CFJ, barring Corona, on the statement 'Corona has >> violated of Rule 2532, "Zombies", and/or Rule 2466, "Acting on >> Behalf", by causing Quazie to violate Rule 2550 "Bidding".' >> >> [For reference, I don't really see how a violation could have been >> committed, but this is all rather unclear and I'd like to see what >> people think." >> >> Arguments: >> >> If Quazie bid in the auction, e committed a violation of Rule 2550, >> "Bidding", and in particular the provision that "A person SHALL NOT >> bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for em to pay that amount >> at the conclusion of the Auction." Quazie did not have any money at >> the time of the bid, and did not get any by the end of the auction. We >> clearly do not hold em culpable for this violation, given that we do >> not in general hold people responsible for violations they could not >> reasonably have avoided, but the violation remains nevertheless. >> >> If Corona successfully caused Quazie to bid, e violated Rule 2466, >> "Acting on Behalf", and specifically the provision that "A person >> SHALL NOT act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the >> second person to violate the rules." What remains in question is >> whether or not Corona's action succeeded. There are three >> possibilities: it succeeded, it failed in this specific case, or it >> never works at all. I believe that it is one of the later two. >> >> The crucial question is one of interpreting Rule 2532, "Zombies". >> which states that "A zombie's master, if another player, is allowed to >> act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the zombie's agent) to perform >> LEGAL actions." The phrase "allowed to" is ambiguous, it could mean >> CAN or MAY, although I find it somewhat unlikely that it means both of >> them at once. If it means CAN, then the action failed because the >> action was ILLEGAL, and the affixed conditional resolves to false. >> >> I believe that the phrase probably means MAY. Granted, the Rule 217 >> factors suggest that the phrase means CAN, but I don't think that they >> can overturn the presumption to the contrary in this case. I'm not >> saying that "allow' can never mean "enable', but reading "allowed to" >> to mean "able to" doesn't really sound right. For instance, seems >> reasonable for someone to say "I will allow you to open your mind", >> but (to my ears) it sounds ridiculous to say that "you are allowed to >> open your mind". I think the only reason there even appears to be >> ambiguity is because of preconceived notions of what the zombie rule >> means. Reading the text without judgement, the MAY reading is the >> obvious one. Under this reading, there is no provision anywhere that >> says that an owner CAN act on behalf of a zombie, so e can't. >> >> -Aris >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
