I have looked again and believe the sequence of events is convoluted and includes both a failed recusal (sent to A-D) and a failed second motion to reconsider (you can only file one) but the long and short of it is that there exists a final judgement which was not mooted (it was one vote short and based on a misconception that I was supposed to address the deputization issue). This judgement, which was validly sent twice to A-B at that time is reproduced below.
The voluminous further discussion of this case served no purpose but confusion and the below judgement is final, at least as far as I can tell. This reassignment seems invalid. I move to reconsider (you can't, you cndan intend to move and wait for two support. I'm judging this FALSE. GASP! Surprise rocks the nation. I'm not judging it FALSE because auctioning is a regulated action though. It seems to me that despite the auction provisions, people could auction their own property without breaching the rules. I'm judging it based on the fact that Estate ownership is regulated, and CB's attempt to auction off Estates owned by another entity (Agora) and person (Josh) does not work. "A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement" from rule 2489 regulates Estate ownership, as does the auction provision. This, mixed with the fact that the ordinary meaning of the word "Owner" means someone who can control their property, precludes anyone from taking an Estate from its owner or causing it to be taken from em, unless specifically authorized by rule (such as the auction provision). CB raises the additional argument that an auction still can be called even if the winner cannot have the property transferred to them. Auction is undefined. The ordinary meaning is "a public sale in which goods or property are sold to the highest bidder.". A sale cannot exist unless the property is actually given to the winner of the auction. I have already explained that this cannot happen. Therefore, an auction has not been called here. On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 22:44 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > 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. > > It isn't a moot. E motioned to reconsider and then failed to re-judge. > So you do need to actually pass judgement officially. > > -- > ais523 >
