> On Nov 19, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> Because V.J. Rada did not pay 1011 shinies as a single action, eir purchase >>> failed, and this CFJ is FALSE. E retains all of eir shinies, because they >>> did >>> not in the end accomplish their clearly stated goal. >> >> I intend, with two support, to file a motion to reconsider. >> >> I agree with the overarching logic of this decision, and expect that the >> reconsidered >> judgement on the statement in question should stand, but I’m concerned that >> this may >> set the precedent that an action intended to lead to a future consequence >> can be un-done, >> retroactively, if the consequence fails. > > So if the Pend price is 2, and I try to spend 1 shiny in one message > "for the purpose of pending the proposal" and then try to do the > second one in a second message, you're suggesting that this counts > as retroactive un-doing? It seems to me that, they way we've been > playing, the first one just fails right away because it didn't do the > intended thing.
The last time I can remember that this came up, it was a new player’s attempt to spend a shiny to pend a proposal, specifically[0], which I have no problem arguing failed. Using vaguer wording (“towards the purchase of” rather than “to purchase”) in the scam message was an intentional choice: I wanted to eliminate or at least reduce this class of objection to the overall action by using a broader, possibly-unregulated goal instead of a specific, regulated action. I specifically wanted the individual payments to succeed independently of the overall scam[1]. I can’t think of any spots where we’ve had to deal with a partial payment on a less-specific goal action, but I may be missing something. -o [0] bayushi’s exact wording was > I pay Agora 5 shinies to pay the Pending List Price for my proposal > "Agoraculture v. 2.0" to flip its Imminence switch to "pending”. [1] in fact, that’s what I was expecting to see in the CFJ, although I admit I’m pleasantly surprised by the actual judgement.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
