On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 11:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On 1/26/2020 7:38 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > > Alexis wrote: > >> I'm not sold on this, or on the precedent. > >> > >> R2125 is clear that actions can only be performed by the methods > >> *explicitly* specified. It seems to me that it closes the door to > methods > >> of performing actions being specified by implication, even by necessary > >> implication. I think it requires a conclusion that zombies are broken > (cf. > >> the text of the rules taking precedence). > > > > I would have said that auction-as-a-method was *explicitly* specified, > > just not *clearly* specified. IOW, although its meaning is probably not > > obvious on a cursory inspection - and I don't think it was the intention > > of the original author, either - I don't see any other plausible > > interpretation of the text in R2545. "An Auction is a way" (syn. method) > > "for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency"; it just > > *is*, there's no subjectivity or subtle implication to it. > > Similar to the precedent of CFJ 3659 which found that something could be > "unambiguous" but not "clear": > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3659 > (that's my personal favorite among all the win-by-Apathy attempts I've ever > seen btw). > > However, the dictionary definition of "explicit" also seems to embody > clarity: > "explicit: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or > doubt" or "explicit: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, > implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent". > > -G. > I think this needs to be addressed properly in the judgment. I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3793. I will likely have more argument on this but not at the moment, figure I should get the intent going though. -Alexis
