Re: DIS: Re: [@Treasuror] Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] December Stone Auction Resolution

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 12/20/2020 1:29 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> 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.
> 

CFJ 3658 (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3658)
discusses the definition of "document" a bit:

What about "document"?  A "public Document" is defined by R1551 as "part
(possibly all) of a public message."  This narrows things down in one
direction - a single document cannot be spread over multiple messages. But
within a message, this would allow every section, or even every single
character of a message to be a separate "document".  One could even say
"I CoE on the document made up by taking every other letter of the
following report."

However, looking to the common definition of "document" gives:
>   A piece of written, printed, or electronic matter that provides
>   information or evidence or that serves as an official record.

The key point here is that a document provides information or is an
official record.  At the extreme, a single character provides no
information on its own, so this suggests there's a minimum information
content for a document to be a document.  And for these purposes, the
"official record" in question is clearly defined in R2166/26:
>    That entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
>     and their owners. This portion of that entity's report is self-
>     ratifying.

This list is described as a unit, so a full list of Currency X holdings is
the minimum "unit of information" that could be considered a self-
ratifying document.  Further, the fact that multiple "documents" can be
comingled means that each Currency List is a separate "document", even if
the information is in columns or otherwise combined with other "documents"
(e.g. in columns of multiple currencies).