But you did not address the text of the rules, which must take precedence. Moreover, you didn't directly address the other factors, and on the face I disagree that either common sense or the best interests of the game lead to your conclusion.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 at 13:12 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > The presidential underpinnings are less important than the rules in > question. In the second opinion, my arguments were primarily based on > the relevant rules. Precedent is only one of the rule 217 factors, > which were split down the middle. Common sense and the best interests > of the game favor my argument. Precedent and custom are opposed to it. > In the end, I conceded that my interpretation agreed with the rules > better, and adopted it. > > -Aris > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:28 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah G. has already made that argument vociferously, and several > > times. Right now as the CFJs stand, it's good law and recently > > re-affirmed (also with regards to MAY). But you're quite right that > > the precedential underpinnings are shaky. > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm digging into the precedent of the SHALL implies CAN by announcement > >> (e.g. CFJ 3557), and I think it arose by taking various judgments out of > >> place. I'll post a more detailed analysis later. > >> > >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 18:22 Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Good job on noticing the extra comma there. > >>> > >>> 天火狐 > >>> > >>> On 12 October 2017 at 17:57, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> [Since we're on the subject of bad grammar, I might as well take care > of > >>>> this - > >>>> ain't getting any fresher.] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >>>> > This auction ended at Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:30:33 -0400, with the > >>>> > following bids: > >>>> > > >>>> > * o, 1 sh., for emself. > >>>> > * o, 80 sh., for emself. (Incuded a blurb.) > >>>> > * G., 1,010 sh. for emself. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I transfer the Estate of Dawsbergen to myself. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I pledge that, if the below CFJ is found TRUE and survives the > >>>> Reconsideration/Moot > >>>> time frame, I will transfer 41 Shinies to Agora as unofficial payment > for > >>>> this (and > >>>> no other purpose). [41 shinies was the max bid I'd decided on last > week, > >>>> before I > >>>> went and re-read the auction rule]. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I shiny-CFJ on the following statement, barring o: > >>>> > >>>> G. owns the Estate of Dawsbergen. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ARGUMENTS > >>>> > >>>> Regard the following hypothetical Rules clause: > >>>> > >>>> A player CAN do X by A, by B, or by C. > >>>> > >>>> I think there's only one reasonably clear interpretation of this > clause, > >>>> that the player has three independent methods for doing X, either by > A, > >>>> by B or by C. The grammatical clues for this construct are the > >>>> repetition of the term "by", and the "or" which (by clear grammatical > >>>> rules) distributes over the list to "A or B or C." It's pretty darn > >>>> clear, and really the only sensible reading. > >>>> > >>>> Compare this directly with the language of R2491, with line breaks > >>>> inserted for emphasis: > >>>> > >>>> The player who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely > >>>> fashion, cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the > winner > >>>> by announcement, > >>>> by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or > >>>> by causing the winning Organization to pay Agora the amount of the > >>>> bid. > >>>> > >>>> Exactly the same as the hypothetical example. So I have simply opted > >>>> for the first method (by announcement) for making the transfer, > instead > >>>> of the other methods ("by paying"). > >>>> > >>>> That's my whole argument. It's an argument, and it's mine. But I've > >>>> anticipated some counterarguments for your convenience: > >>>> > >>>> Q: But don't you have to pay by announcement? I thought that was the > >>>> point of recent rules changes! So the 'by announcement' shouldn't be > >>>> separated from 'by paying Agora' because otherwise 'paying Agora' > >>>> doesn't work? > >>>> > >>>> A: "paying" is already a by-announcement action by R2166 (Assets). > >>>> Moreover, CFJ 3557 recently found that the CAN and SHALL imply 'by > >>>> announcement', so that implication should map onto all three methods > in > >>>> terms of announcing the reason for the payment. > >>>> > >>>> Q: But other rules have this compound! What about this: > >>>> Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to > "pending" > >>>> by announcement by: b) spending the current Pend Cost in shinies > >>>> and this: > >>>> b) by announcement, and spending the current CFJ Cost in > shinies, > >>>> > >>>> A: None of those examples have an "or", real or implied. And > >>>> "spending" *isn't* a 'by announcement' action on its own, so it needs > >>>> the support and the strongly-implied 'and'. > >>>> > >>>> Q: But can't we read '...by A, by B, or by C' as 'by A and either > >>>> (by B or by C)'? > >>>> > >>>> A: That's a really poor inference from the grammar, and substituting > >>>> a weakly-implied "and" for a strongly-implied 'or' is a complete > >>>> reversal of meaning, not a minor grammatical quirk. > >>>> > >>>> Q: But the *intent* of the rule is clearly... > >>>> > >>>> A: This is Agora - text of the rules, dude. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> EVIDENCE > >>>> > >>>> Rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions") > >>>> [Note: the most recent SLR/FLR has this rule incorrectly-written due > to > >>>> a copy/past error. I've taken this text from Proposal 7888.] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate, > >>>> the Surveyor CAN, by announcement, and SHALL in a timely > >>>> fashion, put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction. > >>>> Each auction ends seven days after it begins. > >>>> > >>>> During an auction, any player CAN bid a number of Shinies on > >>>> eir own behalf, by announcement, or on behalf of any > >>>> Organization for which such a bid is Appropriate, by > >>>> announcement, provided the bid is higher than any > >>>> previously-placed bid in the same auction. > >>>> > >>>> If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid, > >>>> then that player or Organization wins the auction. The player > >>>> who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely fashion, > >>>> cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the winner by > >>>> announcement, by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or by > >>>> causing the winning Organization to pay Agora the amount of the > >>>> bid. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada >