On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 8:59 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 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 I support. > >
