It wasn't a moot. This reassignment was based off of an earlier recusal.

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:

> Ah, quoting styles, one of the great old flamewars. Let’s re-light that
> cautiously, shall we?
>
> > On Jul 24, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > I reassign CFJ 3537 to o.
>
> The CFJ in question is on the statement
>
> > There is currently more than one auction for Estates.
>
>
> This was posited in the interval between Cuddlebeam’s message purporting
> to put every estate up for auction, and subsequent CFJs determining that e
> had not successfully deputized for the Surveyor.
>
> Given that rule 2491 (“Estate Auctions”) regulates the entire process of
> auctioning an estate, I find that initiating an estate auction is also a
> regulated action per the definition in rule 2125 (“Regulation
> Regulations”). As r. 2491 only empowers the Surveyor to begin auctions, and
> as Cuddlebeam was not the Surveyor at that time, eir attempt to place every
> estate up for auction could not have succeeded, as it did not meet the
> conditions necessary to permit that action under r. 2491.
>
> [Technically, this interpretation would appear to make it impossible for a
> player to auction eir own estate. However, I believe this to be irrelevant,
> as a player can _always_ transfer eir own estates by announcement,
> including transfering them to the winner of an auction conducted other than
> according to r. 2125.]
>
> While I accept P.S.S.’ arguments that the rules aspects of the original
> judgement are flawed, I find that the conclusion was nonetheless correct. I
> AFFIRM V.J Rada’s judgement that the statement is FALSE.
>
> -o
>
> P.S. Honourable Arbitor, it may have been useful had you spelled out that
> this was a moot specifically. We don’t have those often and many players,
> myself included, are unfamiliar with them. I nearly forgot to spell out
> that I was AFFIRMing the most recent judgement, and instead nearly passed
> judgement myself.
>
>

Reply via email to