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
>
