Ah, quoting styles, one of the great old flamewars. Let’s re-light that cautiously, shall we?
> On Jul 24, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > I reassign CFJ 3537 to o. The CFJ in question is on the statement > There is currently more than one auction for Estates. This was posited in the interval between Cuddlebeam’s message purporting to put every estate up for auction, and subsequent CFJs determining that e had not successfully deputized for the Surveyor. Given that rule 2491 (“Estate Auctions”) regulates the entire process of auctioning an estate, I find that initiating an estate auction is also a regulated action per the definition in rule 2125 (“Regulation Regulations”). As r. 2491 only empowers the Surveyor to begin auctions, and as Cuddlebeam was not the Surveyor at that time, eir attempt to place every estate up for auction could not have succeeded, as it did not meet the conditions necessary to permit that action under r. 2491. [Technically, this interpretation would appear to make it impossible for a player to auction eir own estate. However, I believe this to be irrelevant, as a player can _always_ transfer eir own estates by announcement, including transfering them to the winner of an auction conducted other than according to r. 2125.] While I accept P.S.S.’ arguments that the rules aspects of the original judgement are flawed, I find that the conclusion was nonetheless correct. I AFFIRM V.J Rada’s judgement that the statement is FALSE. -o P.S. Honourable Arbitor, it may have been useful had you spelled out that this was a moot specifically. We don’t have those often and many players, myself included, are unfamiliar with them. I nearly forgot to spell out that I was AFFIRMing the most recent judgement, and instead nearly passed judgement myself.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
