The judgement's statement that the shiny is mine is dicta: absolutely no relevance to the case's statement. Call another CFJ.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Owen Jacobson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. > -- >From V.J. Rada
