no you're right it can be done once count it as supplementary reasoning.
although i don't think it needs to say the number as CFJ numbering is
totally unofficial. I am judging 1 CFJ right now. It's clear which one I
mean.
e attempted to say that auctions were totally unregulated and e could call
one by anouncement. then he called this cfj and that's what it says. THEN
he tried to deputize. if i'm wrong i reccommend mooting and judging this
one as IRRELEVANT because there's a CFJ on the deputization issue.
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:40 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> no the deputization was a different thing and a different cfj
>
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> You overlook the major point that he was attempting to put them up for
>> auction by deputisation not by announcement. Also, you can't motion to
>> reconsider given that a motion to reconsider has already occurred. Even if
>> you could, you never state what CFJ this is for, therefore I believe this
>> is completely ineffective.
>> ----
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:34 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I call for reconsideration (again) and submit the following judgement
>> of FALSE
>> >
>> > 1. Facts
>> > Despite (at the time, at least) not being the Surveyor, Cuddlebeam
>> attempted to
>> > initiate 5 auctions for Estates. Four of these were of Estates owned by
>> Agora, and one was owned by a private party. E then called this CFJ to
>> determine whether any auction was indeed ongoing. While an auction is
>> currently ongoing, it is an oft-repeated maxim that CFJs shall be judged on
>> the facts at the calling of the CFJ. The question in this case is whether a
>> player can initiate auctions for any Estate by announcement and if not,
>> whether they may initate auctions for only private Estates or only Agoran
>> estates.
>> > 2.The meaning of the word auction
>> > Without resorting to any dictionaries, an auction means to me a sale in
>> which people bid for an item and the person who bid the most wins the item.
>> A dictionary definition of auction is similar: an auction is "a public sale
>> in which goods or property are sold to the highest bidder." The previously
>> run auction for Estates worked in a similar way. There has been some
>> controversy about whether or not an auction with no possibility of sale is
>> indeed an auction. I ruled that it was not. PSS contended that because
>> under the current rules' provision for auctions, the auction itself did not
>> transfer Estates, my interpretation would render all auctions invalid.
>> However, I here affirm my previous ruling. The player transferring the
>> Estate to emself is similar to a person at a car auction grabbing the item
>> they bought. Even if transfer is not guarenteed, it is likely. I hold that
>> under the common sense, dictionary and game practise meaning of the word
>> "auction", a purported auction that is unlikely or impossible to result in
>> a transfer of the auctioned Estate
>> > is no auction at all.
>> > 3.Josh's Estate
>> > I hold that the Estate Josh T holds cannot be transferred and thus no
>> auction is taking place for the Estate of Antegria (under the facts at the
>> time of the calling). The Rules state that "A player who owns an Estate can
>> and may transfer it to any player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by
>> announcement.". This clearly regulates the transferring of Estates and
>> places two conditions on it ("a player who owns an Estate" and "by
>> announcement". It is clear neither CB nor anyone else may transfer Josh's
>> estate to anyone else because they do not meet the restrictions. Fun fact:
>> when an organization is transferred an Estate, it can never leave. rito plz.
>> > 4. Agoran Estates
>> > Agora is not a sentient being (yet) and cannot act on its own behalf to
>> transfer Estates it owns. Therefore the rules create another way for
>> Estates to be transferred. By an auction initiated by the Surveyor. However
>> it also makes the judgement that this should only be done by the Surveyor,
>> once a month. CB is not the Surveyor, and he is attempting to initiate four
>> auctions at once. It is clear that the rules "limit" the action of
>> initiating an auction to the Surveyor. Previous judgements and messages
>> have invoked Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant, but that statutory cannon
>> applies to two conflicting statutes. I would instead invoke the principle
>> of both Agora and common law systems that a Rule or legislative decision
>> overrides any murky general ability to do something. CB's attempted actions
>> are outside the regulatory framework and therefore not effective. It was
>> clearly the intent of the writers of the rule for one Auction to happen at
>> once, and CB's action would disrupt the intent.
>> >
>> > FALSE
>>
>>
>
