I assign this CFJ to myself, being without objections. On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
-- >From V.J. Rada
