yes! it is an informal request rather than anything defined by the rules, i
dont know why we say it that way.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:55 AM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I keep hearing this and I don't know what it means. Does
> it mean that you wish to be the Judge?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/10/19 8:53 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > i favor this one
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents
> like
> >> that. A good example is Tournaments (R2464) where winning is delegated
> -
> >> at times we've allowed tournaments to hold/award Coins and change other
> >> game quantities other than winning.
> >>
> >> For Proposals specifically I think that would be a court case - by
> R106, a
> >> proposal "takes effect" and applies all its provisions instantaneously,
> >> then
> >> is done. I'm not sure a continuous effect like that in a proposal would
> >> "continue having effect" once its done.
> >>
> >> On 6/10/2019 4:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>> I might be missing some precedent here, but if the wording was "except
> >> as
> >>> described by a proposal or rule", then couldn't I submit a proposal
> that
> >>> says something to the effect of "Any player CAN, by announcement,
> >> expunge
> >>> any number of Blots from emself." and then have that wording captured
> by
> >> the
> >>> Rule?
> >>>
> >>> The authorizing Instrument would be the Rule, giving it power to do
> >> secured
> >>> changes. The Rule explicitly delegates to the proposal, thus
> effectively
> >>> giving it the entire power of the Rule to destroy assets.
> >>>
> >>> Jason Cobb
> >>>
> >>> On 6/10/19 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>>> Interesting catch.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
> >>>> "except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual
> phrasing
> >>>> that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as
> >> described"
> >>>> part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
> >>>> attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
> >>>> knowledge.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>>>> CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e
> >> has
> >>>>> neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the
> current
> >>>>> Agoran week."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Caller's Evidence ================= Excerpt from Rule 2555/2
> ("Blots")
> >>>>> [Power=2]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
> >>>>> restricted to persons.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots
> from
> >>>>> emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
> >>>>> emself by announcement.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
> >> announcement,
> >>>>> subject to modification by its backing document. An
> >> indestructible
> >>>>> asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and
> CANNOT
> >> be
> >>>>> destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
> >>>>> specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible
> assets
> >>>>> or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Caller's Arguments
> >>>>> ==================
> >>>>> I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from
> >> emself,
> >>>>> then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577, the
> Blot
> >>>>> CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a proposal or rule,
> >>>>> other than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing the destruction of
> >>>>> indestructible assets or that asset in particular", but rather by the
> >>>>> Player.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as
> >> the
> >>>>> definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in Rule
> >>>>> 2555, but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the definition,
> and
> >>>>> then later attempts to override the definition in Rule 2577. Thus the
> >>>>> conflict is between two Rules, rather than within the text of a
> >> certain
> >>>>> rule.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030
> >> ("Precedence
> >>>>> between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher Power takes
> >>>>> precedence. In this case that is Rule 2577. This would mean that
> Blots
> >>>>> CANNOT be destroyed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I
> >> will
> >>>>> withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on
> "indestructible"
> >>>>> assets, and the ones that I found on Blots seemed not to be relevant.
> >> I
> >>>>> was unable to find precedent on conflicts with definitions solely by
> >>>>> searching the statements of CFJs.]
> >>>>>
> >
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
