Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3793 judged FALSE (zombies work but not for Gaelan)

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 1/26/2020 8:59 AM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 11:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
>>
>> On 1/26/2020 7:38 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> Alexis wrote:
>>>> I'm not sold on this, or on the precedent.
>>>>
>>>> R2125 is clear that actions can only be performed by the methods
>>>> *explicitly* specified. It seems to me that it closes the door to
>> methods
>>>> of performing actions being specified by implication, even by necessary
>>>> implication. I think it requires a conclusion that zombies are broken
>> (cf.
>>>> the text of the rules taking precedence).
>>>
>>> I would have said that auction-as-a-method was *explicitly* specified,
>>> just not *clearly* specified. IOW, although its meaning is probably not
>>> obvious on a cursory inspection - and I don't think it was the intention
>>> of the original author, either - I don't see any other plausible
>>> interpretation of the text in R2545. "An Auction is a way" (syn. method)
>>> "for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency"; it just
>>> *is*, there's no subjectivity or subtle implication to it.
>>
>> Similar to the precedent of CFJ 3659 which found that something could be
>> "unambiguous" but not "clear":
>> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3659
>> (that's my personal favorite among all the win-by-Apathy attempts I've ever
>> seen btw).
>>
>> However, the dictionary definition of "explicit" also seems to embody
>> clarity:
>>  "explicit:  stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or
>> doubt" or "explicit: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness,
>> implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent".
>>
>> -G.
>>
> 
> I think this needs to be addressed properly in the judgment. I intend, with
> 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3793.
> 
> I will likely have more argument on this but not at the moment, figure I
> should get the intent going though.

Actually, thinking about it, I'm not concerned about the "explicit" part.
Explicit refers to stating the associated method, not the functioning of the
method itself.

For example - it is explicit to say that an act is doable "Without Objection".
 That satisfies the requirement.  If it turns out that something inside the
dependent action definition is broken so it doesn't work (as has happened many
times), that doesn't make the statement for doing things Without Objection
less explicit.

In this case, it is pretty explicit that zombie transfer procedure is done "by
auction".  If the internal auction mechanisms aren't working, that's beside
the point.

-G.