On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I shiny-CFJ on the following statement, barring o:
>
> G. owns the Estate of Dawsbergen.
This is CFJ 3575. I assign it to V.J. Rada
> ARGUMENTS
>
> Regard the following hypothetical Rules clause:
>
> A player CAN do X by A, by B, or by C.
>
> I think there's only one reasonably clear interpretation of this clause,
> that the player has three independent methods for doing X, either by A,
> by B or by C. The grammatical clues for this construct are the
> repetition of the term "by", and the "or" which (by clear grammatical
> rules) distributes over the list to "A or B or C." It's pretty darn
> clear, and really the only sensible reading.
>
> Compare this directly with the language of R2491, with line breaks
> inserted for emphasis:
>
> The player who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely
> fashion, cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the winner
> by announcement,
> by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or
> by causing the winning Organization to pay Agora the amount of the
> bid.
>
> Exactly the same as the hypothetical example. So I have simply opted
> for the first method (by announcement) for making the transfer, instead
> of the other methods ("by paying").
>
> That's my whole argument. It's an argument, and it's mine. But I've
> anticipated some counterarguments for your convenience:
>
> Q: But don't you have to pay by announcement? I thought that was the
> point of recent rules changes! So the 'by announcement' shouldn't be
> separated from 'by paying Agora' because otherwise 'paying Agora'
> doesn't work?
>
> A: "paying" is already a by-announcement action by R2166 (Assets).
> Moreover, CFJ 3557 recently found that the CAN and SHALL imply 'by
> announcement', so that implication should map onto all three methods in
> terms of announcing the reason for the payment.
>
> Q: But other rules have this compound! What about this:
> Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending"
> by announcement by: b) spending the current Pend Cost in shinies
> and this:
> b) by announcement, and spending the current CFJ Cost in shinies,
>
> A: None of those examples have an "or", real or implied. And
> "spending" *isn't* a 'by announcement' action on its own, so it needs
> the support and the strongly-implied 'and'.
>
> Q: But can't we read '...by A, by B, or by C' as 'by A and either
> (by B or by C)'?
>
> A: That's a really poor inference from the grammar, and substituting
> a weakly-implied "and" for a strongly-implied 'or' is a complete
> reversal of meaning, not a minor grammatical quirk.
>
> Q: But the *intent* of the rule is clearly...
>
> A: This is Agora - text of the rules, dude.
>
>
> EVIDENCE
>
> Rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions")
> [Note: the most recent SLR/FLR has this rule incorrectly-written due to
> a copy/past error. I've taken this text from Proposal 7888.]
>
>
> At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate,
> the Surveyor CAN, by announcement, and SHALL in a timely
> fashion, put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction.
> Each auction ends seven days after it begins.
>
> During an auction, any player CAN bid a number of Shinies on
> eir own behalf, by announcement, or on behalf of any
> Organization for which such a bid is Appropriate, by
> announcement, provided the bid is higher than any
> previously-placed bid in the same auction.
>
> If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
> then that player or Organization wins the auction. The player
> who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely fashion,
> cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the winner by
> announcement, by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or by
> causing the winning Organization to pay Agora the amount of the
> bid.
>
>
>
>
