I intend to assign both CFJs referenced in conversation to myself, without 3 objections.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think we want to waive platonism to that degree. However, it > would seem reasonable for you to issue a ruling on both now, and then > only formalize it once it actually gets assigned to you, given that > you've already gone through the waiting period once. Does anyone else > object to that arraignment? One possible alternative would be for you > (or someone else, I suppose) to deputize for Arbitor to fulfill some > old business and then assign yourself, which would have the advantage > that we'd have an Arbitor again. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Excuse me, these are 2 CFJs. Would Agora see fit to interpret my >> actions as assigning both CFJs to myself? >> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
