I intend to assign both CFJs referenced in this conversation to myself, without 3 objections.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > I intend to assign both CFJs referenced in conversation to myself, > without 3 objections. > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't think we want to waive platonism to that degree. However, it >> would seem reasonable for you to issue a ruling on both now, and then >> only formalize it once it actually gets assigned to you, given that >> you've already gone through the waiting period once. Does anyone else >> object to that arraignment? One possible alternative would be for you >> (or someone else, I suppose) to deputize for Arbitor to fulfill some >> old business and then assign yourself, which would have the advantage >> that we'd have an Arbitor again. >> >> -Aris >> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Excuse me, these are 2 CFJs. Would Agora see fit to interpret my >>> actions as assigning both CFJs to myself? >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> I assign this CFJ to myself, being without objections. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> I think you intended to assign a CFJ to yourself about 8 days ago, G. >>>>> Should probably do so. >>>>> >>>>> I intend to assign this CFJ to myself without 3 objections. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I find Shenanigans. Since the zombie act-on-behalf rule means >>>>>> Corona CANNOT cause Quazie to perform illegal actions: >>>>>> -If the bid was illegal, it failed and no crime was commited; >>>>>> -If the bid was legal, no crime was committed. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: >>>>>>> I point my finger at Corona for violations of Rule 2532, "Zombies", >>>>>>> and/or Rule 2466, "Acting on Behalf", committed by causing Quazie to >>>>>>> violate Rule 2550, "Bidding". I CFJ, barring G., on the statement >>>>>>> 'Rule 2532, "Zombies", enables zombie owners to act on behalf of their >>>>>>> zombies.' I CFJ, barring Corona, on the statement 'Corona has >>>>>>> violated of Rule 2532, "Zombies", and/or Rule 2466, "Acting on >>>>>>> Behalf", by causing Quazie to violate Rule 2550 "Bidding".' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [For reference, I don't really see how a violation could have been >>>>>>> committed, but this is all rather unclear and I'd like to see what >>>>>>> people think." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Arguments: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If Quazie bid in the auction, e committed a violation of Rule 2550, >>>>>>> "Bidding", and in particular the provision that "A person SHALL NOT >>>>>>> bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for em to pay that amount >>>>>>> at the conclusion of the Auction." Quazie did not have any money at >>>>>>> the time of the bid, and did not get any by the end of the auction. We >>>>>>> clearly do not hold em culpable for this violation, given that we do >>>>>>> not in general hold people responsible for violations they could not >>>>>>> reasonably have avoided, but the violation remains nevertheless. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If Corona successfully caused Quazie to bid, e violated Rule 2466, >>>>>>> "Acting on Behalf", and specifically the provision that "A person >>>>>>> SHALL NOT act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the >>>>>>> second person to violate the rules." What remains in question is >>>>>>> whether or not Corona's action succeeded. There are three >>>>>>> possibilities: it succeeded, it failed in this specific case, or it >>>>>>> never works at all. I believe that it is one of the later two. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The crucial question is one of interpreting Rule 2532, "Zombies". >>>>>>> which states that "A zombie's master, if another player, is allowed to >>>>>>> act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the zombie's agent) to perform >>>>>>> LEGAL actions." The phrase "allowed to" is ambiguous, it could mean >>>>>>> CAN or MAY, although I find it somewhat unlikely that it means both of >>>>>>> them at once. If it means CAN, then the action failed because the >>>>>>> action was ILLEGAL, and the affixed conditional resolves to false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe that the phrase probably means MAY. Granted, the Rule 217 >>>>>>> factors suggest that the phrase means CAN, but I don't think that they >>>>>>> can overturn the presumption to the contrary in this case. I'm not >>>>>>> saying that "allow' can never mean "enable', but reading "allowed to" >>>>>>> to mean "able to" doesn't really sound right. For instance, seems >>>>>>> reasonable for someone to say "I will allow you to open your mind", >>>>>>> but (to my ears) it sounds ridiculous to say that "you are allowed to >>>>>>> open your mind". I think the only reason there even appears to be >>>>>>> ambiguity is because of preconceived notions of what the zombie rule >>>>>>> means. Reading the text without judgement, the MAY reading is the >>>>>>> obvious one. Under this reading, there is no provision anywhere that >>>>>>> says that an owner CAN act on behalf of a zombie, so e can't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Aris >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> From V.J. Rada >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> From V.J. Rada >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
