DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3793 judged FALSE (zombies work but not for Gaelan)
On Sun., Jan. 26, 2020, 07:16 Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business, < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I wrote: > > === CFJ 3793 > === > > > > Rance’s master switch is set to Gaelan. > > > > > == > > > > Caller:Gaelan > > > > Judge: twg > > Judgement: FALSE > > > > > == > > I earn 5 coins for judging this CFJ. > > Blue Glitter: I earn 12 coins. > > -twg. > I'm not sold on this, or on the precedent. R2125 is clear that actions can only be performed by the methods *explicitly* specified. It seems to me that it closes the door to methods of performing actions being specified by implication, even by necessary implication. I think it requires a conclusion that zombies are broken (cf. the text of the rules taking precedence). -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3793 judged FALSE (zombies work but not for Gaelan)
Alexis wrote: > I'm not sold on this, or on the precedent. > > R2125 is clear that actions can only be performed by the methods > *explicitly* specified. It seems to me that it closes the door to methods > of performing actions being specified by implication, even by necessary > implication. I think it requires a conclusion that zombies are broken (cf. > the text of the rules taking precedence). I would have said that auction-as-a-method was *explicitly* specified, just not *clearly* specified. IOW, although its meaning is probably not obvious on a cursory inspection - and I don't think it was the intention of the original author, either - I don't see any other plausible interpretation of the text in R2545. "An Auction is a way" (syn. method) "for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency"; it just *is*, there's no subjectivity or subtle implication to it. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3793 judged FALSE (zombies work but not for Gaelan)
On 1/26/2020 7:38 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > Alexis wrote: >> I'm not sold on this, or on the precedent. >> >> R2125 is clear that actions can only be performed by the methods >> *explicitly* specified. It seems to me that it closes the door to methods >> of performing actions being specified by implication, even by necessary >> implication. I think it requires a conclusion that zombies are broken (cf. >> the text of the rules taking precedence). > > I would have said that auction-as-a-method was *explicitly* specified, > just not *clearly* specified. IOW, although its meaning is probably not > obvious on a cursory inspection - and I don't think it was the intention > of the original author, either - I don't see any other plausible > interpretation of the text in R2545. "An Auction is a way" (syn. method) > "for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency"; it just > *is*, there's no subjectivity or subtle implication to it. Similar to the precedent of CFJ 3659 which found that something could be "unambiguous" but not "clear": https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3659 (that's my personal favorite among all the win-by-Apathy attempts I've ever seen btw). However, the dictionary definition of "explicit" also seems to embody clarity: "explicit: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt" or "explicit: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent". -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3793 judged FALSE (zombies work but not for Gaelan)
On 1/26/2020 8:59 AM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 11:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> >> On 1/26/2020 7:38 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Alexis wrote: I'm not sold on this, or on the precedent. R2125 is clear that actions can only be performed by the methods *explicitly* specified. It seems to me that it closes the door to >> methods of performing actions being specified by implication, even by necessary implication. I think it requires a conclusion that zombies are broken >> (cf. the text of the rules taking precedence). >>> >>> I would have said that auction-as-a-method was *explicitly* specified, >>> just not *clearly* specified. IOW, although its meaning is probably not >>> obvious on a cursory inspection - and I don't think it was the intention >>> of the original author, either - I don't see any other plausible >>> interpretation of the text in R2545. "An Auction is a way" (syn. method) >>> "for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency"; it just >>> *is*, there's no subjectivity or subtle implication to it. >> >> Similar to the precedent of CFJ 3659 which found that something could be >> "unambiguous" but not "clear": >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3659 >> (that's my personal favorite among all the win-by-Apathy attempts I've ever >> seen btw). >> >> However, the dictionary definition of "explicit" also seems to embody >> clarity: >> "explicit: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or >> doubt" or "explicit: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, >> implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent". >> >> -G. >> > > I think this needs to be addressed properly in the judgment. I intend, with > 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3793. > > I will likely have more argument on this but not at the moment, figure I > should get the intent going though. Actually, thinking about it, I'm not concerned about the "explicit" part. Explicit refers to stating the associated method, not the functioning of the method itself. For example - it is explicit to say that an act is doable "Without Objection". That satisfies the requirement. If it turns out that something inside the dependent action definition is broken so it doesn't work (as has happened many times), that doesn't make the statement for doing things Without Objection less explicit. In this case, it is pretty explicit that zombie transfer procedure is done "by auction". If the internal auction mechanisms aren't working, that's beside the point. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3793 judged FALSE (zombies work but not for Gaelan)
On Sun., Jan. 26, 2020, 15:51 Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business, < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Alexis wrote: > > I think this needs to be addressed properly in the judgment. I intend, > with > > 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3793. > > > > I will likely have more argument on this but not at the moment, figure I > > should get the intent going though. > > Aris wrote: > > I support. > > I support, and do so. > > -twg > Further arguments: I do not agree with the argument that an auction inherently acts as a mechanism, because of the existence of the last paragraph of Rule 2551. It says that when a lot is paid for, the transfer occurs automatically if the auctioneer can transfer at will, but otherwise only creates an obligation to transfer. This very clearly excludes situations where the auctioneer cannot transfer the lot at will from the scope of the automatic transfer. If an auction is implicitly a mechanism, then we have effectively the following: 1. If the auctioneer can transfer it at will, it happens automatically. 2. If the auctioneer can transfer it, but not at all, it does not happen automatically. 3. If the auctioneer cannot transfer it at all, it happens... automatically. This is rather absurd, and definitely not explicitly specified. See also the entirety of rule 2552, which allowed an auction to be terminated if the lot cannot be transferred away. It clearly envisions a world where something is up for auction but cannot be transferred, which could not be the case if R2545 provides a fallback mechanism. Finally, examine closely the reasoning in CFJ 3694. The judge found that R2545 requires, by necessary implication, that Agora CAN transfer zombies. This very well may be the case. But that begs the very question of the mechanism by which Agora can do so. R2125 is very clear in providing that, if the rules state something is possible but do not state, explicitly, the manner in which it can be done, then it cannot be done. It may well be that R2545 implies that Agora CAN transfer the zombies away, but it cannot also imply a mechanism. Reading it as implying a mechanism would mean that, somehow, the language in R2545 would be considered more explicit than text such as "The auctioneer CAN transfer the lot to the winner.", which clearly lacks a mechanism and would be ineffective. I think that the first paragraph of R2545 is best interpreted as descriptive text outlining the general purpose of auctions. This isn't different from similar language in other rules. The rules do include descriptive, non-normative text from time to time, such as in the description of some offices, or inscribed on our rather beautiful town fountain. Such an interpretation should not be entirely discounted. -Alexis >
