On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:38, AIS523--- via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 15:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Now here we are a third time. Whatever we can say about CFJ 3694, > > the judgement is suitably unintuitive such that almost no one reading > > the rules without this precedent/context thinks that zombie auctions > > actually work... > > This strikes me as an almost identical situation to a rule stating that > a player CAN perform a given action, but not specifying a mechanism to > do so. I'm not up to date with our existing precedents on that, > though. > > I'm reminded of the concept of ω-inconsistency in logic: a system is > ω-inconsistent if it holds a statement of the form "some integer has > property X" to be true, but also holds statements of the form "N does > not have propety X" to be true for every specific integer N. A rule > stating that something is possible without specifying a mechanism to > perform it seems to introduce an ω-inconsistency into Agora.] > The logical fix, perhaps, is to make announcement the default mode of action, including perhaps allowing anyone to cause a non-person to do something it is required to do, by announcement . -Alexis
