On 4/4/2020 10:45 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 00:28, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> On 4/4/2020 8:55 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: >>> A zombie auction is an Agoran decision to award ownership of zombies to >>> players. A zombie is eligible for auction if its master switch is set to >>> Agora and has a resale value greater than 0. >> >> Since zombies can vote on decisions I think R683 might overrule R2542's >> list of prohibitions and allow zombies to bid? (and possibly allow zombie >> masters to bid?) Sorry if I'm missing an obvious block to that somewhere. >> > > Masters still can't act on behalf of zombies to bid. >
You probably want to add that "bid" = "cast a ballot" - it's not a big intuitive leap to assume that, but it's not a straightforward common definition. >>> the valid options are the zombies a) that were eligible for auction at >>> its initiation and b) whose master switch has not changed in the >> meanwhile. >> >> Right now the Registar has discretion and is not required to auction all >> eligible zombies - this removes that discretion. >> > > E does not; the parenthetical in the first paragraph of R1885 eliminates > discretion. As the author of that parenthetical in question, and a Registrar who used it to split up big auctions a few times, I disagree - I think it means that any subset of eligible zombies CAN be auctioned by the registrar. (I'd rather not quibble about the current wording - I see both readings and definitely acknowledge the ambiguity - but it would be great to empower the Registrar to meter the zombie economy if e can't already). >>> Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by appending "The above >>> notwithstanding, an entity CANNOT withdraw a non-PRESENT vote on an >> auction >>> decision except to change eir vote to one with an equal or higher bid." >> >> I think withdrawing from the auction entirely should be allowed, since >> zombies can withdraw themselves during the auction (but if they withdraw >> entirely they shouldn't be allowed to re-enter). >> > > Good idea. How about using PRESENT for that: you can always change to > PRESENT, but not away from it? Sounds like a good way to do it!
