No it was meant as friendly discussion mainly!

I think the difference is semantic - If a thing is rules-described I tend 
to think of "failed things" as still being some version of that thing, so 
an "invalid bid" is still something that's there (as opposed to ooga boogas
that aren't there at all).  This is because the phrase "invalid bid" has
some practical meaning in common language so a conditional beginning 
"if (invalid bid)..." isn't automatically bogus.

But that's just a personal judging preference and it's a fuzzy line, so
your way is fine too...

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Is this a Motion to Reconsider? I don't mind it if you deem it necessary.
> 
> (I personally don't think its too weird to consider "DISMISS" for a
> statement like "Could a Ooga Booga have shinies?" or "Did he distim the
> doshes?", which even if it can be read and seems to make language sense,
> it's absurdity because the terms are referring to bogus, and thus the
> statement is bogus, much like CFJ3242
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3242. It would've been
> much different if the CFJ was asking if this Thing was a bid in the first
> place, but it's not, it's about if this Thing would win or not. At least,
> that's how I see it.)
> 
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > By saying there's insufficient information, you imply that you accept
> > the bid as POSSIBLE in the first place, because if the bid wasn't a
> > bid at all, the answer would be FALSE no matter what.
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > > Statement: "were Gaelan’s bid of i on Quazie’s zombie auction still in
> > > place, it would have won."
> > >
> > > This is a fairly tragic judgement for me to give because while I fully
> > > understand the intent of calling it and would love to entertain the idea
> > -
> > > due to how it's formed, DISMISS is the judgement that I must give it.
> > >
> > > The statement is in fact impossible to know at the time of calling it
> > > because it involves knowledge of some uncertain future event: What if
> > > Quazie just un-zombiefies before the Auction is over? He could - at any
> > > moment - by just setting his own Master switch to himself by
> > announcement.
> > > Likewise, any other player could deregister and their bid would cease to
> > be
> > > such.
> > >
> > > Therefore, since insufficient information exists to make a judgement, the
> > > verdict is DISMISS.
> > >
> > > Of course, this is assuming that Gaelan's bid of a value of i is a bid in
> > > the first place (so that it could win), which it may or may not be.
> > >
> > > But, if it weren't, then DISMISS would still be appropriate, because then
> > > this CFJ would be a question about bogus.
> > >
> > > So, regardless of the matter of if Gaelan's bid is a bid in the first
> > > place, which could win or not, DISMISS is appropriate, unfortunately.
> > >
> > > However, for the sake of completeness, here is a CFJ precedent which
> > gives
> > > light to the intent of this issue: CFJ 855 (
> > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?855), however I will
> > give
> > > no official verdict/comment stemming from it because it's not what this
> > CFJ
> > > is about.
> > >
> > > VERDICT: DISMISS
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to