> CFJ: The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined in
> Regulation AM0.
I [proto-] deliver this judgement in CFJ 3923:
The interpretations in this judgement are made in keeping with this part
of Rule 2545/5:
> To further aid trade and commerce,
> auction methods should be interpreted in the name of fairness with
> deference to the method's clear intent, if intent can be
> reasonably inferred.
Importantly, fairness etc. is a *requirement* for any auction to happen:
> e CAN do so by any wholly public method that would be
> generally recognizable, as specified by the auctioneer at the
> start of the auction, and under common definitions and terms used
> in auctions, as a fair, equitable, and timely means of determining
> the auction winners from among the current players, and enabling
> the appropriate exchange of goods.
That is, if the method is found to be unfair, inequitable, or untimely, or
doesn't enable the appropriate exchange of goods, the whole auction fails
(because the auctioneer CANNOT conduct an auction in such a manner), even
if that unfair method is written into a regulation.
It is clear, from the presented evidence, that the *intent* of the
regulations used for the initiation and bidding is that the bidding has
determined that:
- Falsifian won the first lot (a victory card) for 1717cn.
- Trigon won the second lot (a justice card) for 50cn.
- "Funded" regs ensure that the winners CAN pay for these lots.
Any auction resolution that, after bidding has concluded, allows the fees
to differ from these bids, prevents these exchanges from being made, or
allows a payment or lot award to happen twice, would not be enabling the
"appropriate" exchange of goods. So if the regulations end up supporting
such incorrect actions (multiple exchanges for the same lot, no exchanges,
exchanges for the incorrect amount), than the interpretation is that no
auction happened at all, because the auctioneer COULD NOT have started it.
Further, in the name of "fairness", it's fairly clear to me that,
following our general Agoran practices for fee-based actions, and also
general practices of debt and consent, that a failed attempt at exchange
(e.g. the auctioneer exchanging the wrong amount or lot) is generally
intended to fail entirely and atomically, like a fee does - even if, in
this case, the auctioneer could make one of the incorrect transfers on eir
own behalf, as authorized by general asset transfer rules. And further,
to aid trade and commerce, that such a failure would be correctable (i.e.
it wouldn't result in the auction being unresolvable).
One thing that's *unclear* is for multiple lot auctions: if one lot
exchange message is in error, is it "fairer" to have all the lot awards
fail (definitely cleaner overall), or fairer to not hold up the bidders
who got the correct lot for the correct price? Not sure about regulation
intent and/or fairness there, there's arguments to make on both sides for
what's "fairest". So that requires a stricter reading of the regulation
text and exact mechanism.
Taking it in parts:
On 8/8/2021 6:44 PM, Telna via agora-official wrote:
>> Relevant part of AM0:
>>
>> DISTRIBUTION: The auctioneer for an auction CAN and SHALL, within
>> seven days of the ending of that auction's retrieval period,
>> create a public message (henceforth the "distribution message")
>> that contains a full history of bids on the auction and
>> withdrawals from the auction. It must also clearly indicate each
>> awardee and the lot e recieves.
This, on its own, gives the full description of what makes a "distribution
message" (I'm interpreting the lowercase 'must' in the last sentence as a
requirement needed to make it a distribution message, not a SHALL).
The regulation makes the "CAN and SHALL" associated with the actual
exchange a second part of the message - but importantly, it's a separate
requirement from the requirement to publish a distribution message, and
separate from the definition of "distribution message":
>> In this message, the auctioneer
>> CAN and SHALL destroy the amount to be paid from the inventory
>> each awardee and transfer to that player (or create in eir
>> possession if the item is new) the set of assets associated with
>> the lot e won. Failing to publish a distribution message
>> constitutes the Class 3 Crime of Auction Abandonment.
So the first thing to notice is that "in this message, the auctioneer CAN
and SHALL" doesn't have a "by announcement". Now, saying "in a [public]
message, the auctioneer CAN...", when read in light of the special auction
interpretation rules for intent, it's very reasonable to infer that e can
do so by saying so within the message. However, also importantly, it's
missing some of the by-announcement strictures for how it has to be said,
so some flexibility in expression may be inferred.
Also notice it's a separate CAN and SHALL from the distribution message
CAN and SHALL. Moreover, note it's a single CAN and SHALL. "CAN and
SHALL ... each" can be read as being a single action covering everybody.
There's no suggestion that it implies a whole process of actions of the
kind restricted to players "first I transfer the coins of the first
person, then I give them their lot, only after that do I transfer the
coins of the second person..." And importantly, there's no suggestion
that e violates 4 SHALLs for making a mistake in a 2-lot auction (i.e. one
violation for each half of each exchange).
So, using this "stricter" reading, but also ensuring the reading stays
"fair", I find that conducting all of the auction exchanges is a single,
atomic action (with the exchanges being simultaneous, if it matters). It
could just as easily be accomplished like this, without writing out any steps:
> Falsifian wins the first lot (a victory card) for 1717cn.
> Trigon wins the second lot (a justice card) for 50cn.
>
> This message serves to make the appropriate exchanges indicated above.
Importantly, even if the auctioneer listed this out as steps, we don't
have to interpret these as literal "by announcement" steps due to the
flexibility in expression allowable. Even if the auctioneer lists out
individual steps, in a way that implies a sequence, it's still an atomic
action resulting from a single message (if e goes out of eir way to make
it happen in steps - e.g. inserts unrelated actions between the parts of
the transfer - it departs from the actual CAN allowed to em and just fails).
Now, if there's absolutely no indication that the exchange actions were
part of the message, you have a distribution message (so not guilty of
Auction Abandonment), but no attempt at exchanging (so guilty of violating
the SHALL for the additional inclusion of the the exchanges) - flexibility
doesn't extend so far as to imply something entirely unstated was performed.
However, if the transfer steps are specified in greater detail, but one of
the elements is *incorrect*, it would have a different effect. To see
why, here is part of the message itself:
> Falsifian wins the first lot for 1717cn.
> Trigon wins the second lot for 50cn.
>
> No other lots exist.
>
> If all of the following succeed I do them:
> { I revoke from Falsifian 1717cn. I grant em one victory card. }
>
> If all of the following succeed I do them:
> { I revoke from Trigon 628cn. I grant em one justice card. }
Here, there is a contradiction between the result (50cn) and the paid
amount (628cn). This brings it back to this part of the reg for defining
the distribution message:
>> It must also clearly indicate each
>> awardee and the lot e recieves.
While the message quoted above is not directly contradicting in lots and
awardees (just the price), the fact that the price is listed as two
amounts throws the whole distribution message into question. It's not
quite clear where the error lies, even though a first inspection tells us
"oh just the price is wrong" we could just as easily think "Trigon forgot
a bid of 628 coins in the upper history part, so it's the 628 that's
correct". We're not directly told what type of auction this is in this
particular message, so an error in one lot may propagate to other lots,
etc. So, this message, as a whole, did not "clearly indicate each awardee
and the lot e receives".
So rather than being a distribution message that's missing some parts, it
wasn't a distribution message at all.
FALSE.
The final point to make is that, if the message isn't a distribution
message, it would be possible to read the "I revoke from Trigon 628 coins"
as a typical by-announcement thing that Trigon CAN do as a player.
However, by-announcement actions require setting forth intent to perform
that action. As discussed above, the auction transfers are a single
atomic act that differs from the by-announcement action, so the intent
expressed was clearly not an intent to transfer coins by announcement.
