My terminal email reader shows no formatting distinction between the new
and old parts of your message. As such, until I read more carefully, I was
about to complain that it was now too late for you to move to
reconsideration.
It is possible that the raw html format version contains some kind of
distinction, but trying to make sense of nested <div> tags with noisy
style attributes in my head is beyond my patience.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
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
