On 12/20/2020 12:41 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 11:32 AM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 12/13/20 11:28 PM, Lucidiot via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Le 13/12/2020 à 23:28, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion a écrit : >>>> >>>> On 12/10/20 8:46 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: >>>>> On 12/9/2020 11:12 PM, Lucidiot via agora-discussion wrote: >>>>>> Le 10/12/2020 à 02:35, ATMunn via agora-business a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/9/2020 8:30 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/9/2020 7:13 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: >>>>>>>>> This auction was a selective-bid auction. The awardees are as >> follows: >>>>>>>>> [Protection Stone] -> Murphy for 135 coins. >>>>>>>>> [Sabotage Stone] -> Murphy for 130 coins. >>>>>>>>> [Wealth Stone] -> ATMunn for 169 coins. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I pay a fee of 169 coins to transfer the Wealth Stone from Agora to >>>>>>>> myself (for real this time). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wield my Wealth Stone in order to cause myself to earn 5 boatloads >> of >>>>>>> coins (23 coins). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There was a mistake in the rounding method in the Floating Rate >>>>>> Schedule, it's actually 24 coins. >>>>>> (ceiling(4.6212*5) = 24, but Trigon used floor) >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know if it should be CoE'd >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think it's fine as long as the Treasuror records it correctly. The >>>>> important thing is that I wielded the stone and specified myself. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Indeed, Rule 2645 specifies that wielding the stone performs the effect >>>> instantly. The boatloads and its translation into coins were >>>> supplemental effects. Also, for future reference, Claims of Error are >>>> reserved for inaccuracies in reports. In this case the action just >>>> failed and the best you could do would be to inform the player of such >>>> thing. >>>> >>> >>> Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: I meant CoEing the Floating Rate Schedule, >>> since the conversion table is slightly off. I just wanted to avoid >>> extra confusion in the next Forbes, since some can wonder why they got >>> one extra coin. >>> >> >> The conversion table was a courtesy that I put in the FRS. I don't >> believe that claims of error are able to be issued on anything except >> for self-ratifying sections of reports. > > > Precedent seems to disagree. CFJ 1420 said that the list of watchers could > be CoE'd, despite not being defined by the rules. > > The current rules are a bit different, and you could make a pretty fair > argument that, under recent precedent, the conversion table is a separate > document that wasn't required to be published. But even then, you SHOULD > issue a revision, you just NEED NOT do so. The relevant current rule is > Rule 2201.
While CoE is terminology used for any pointing out of error, here's been a fair amount of back and forth about this over the years as per the legal response, and many text changes to the rule. For example, 2201/7 (circa 2017) pretty clearly tied CoE to the self-ratifying documents only. I think then that precedent isn't much use here. The current version has the doubting again following after the self ratification and it's not clear to me. On a "how it should be" note, I think for example that officers SHOULD NOT correct CoEs that are the provenance of other officers (for example, if a Treasuror separates zombies in eir currency reports, a CoE of "X isn't a zombie" shouldn't be responded to by the Treasuror). That's not quite the case here, but just to illustrate that just because someone publishes a fact, there are situations that e SHOULD NOT necessarily respond to CoEs about it. -G.
