On 12/20/20 1:41 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.
-Aris
Under the current rules, only a document can be CoE'd (see Rule
2201/10). I forget what exactly that entails, but if you can classify
the non-self-ratifying and unrequired sections of an official report as
'documents' or parts thereof then I would agree that it can be CoE'd. I
forget what exactly is and isn't a document. Someone who is not me can
look that up.
--
Trigon
¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST
I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
