Fwd: BUS: (CFJ judgement, Glitter) Re: OFF: [referee for Arbitor] CFJ 3946 assigned to ais523
TTttPF Forwarded Message Subject: Re: BUS: (CFJ judgement, Glitter) Re: OFF: [referee for Arbitor] CFJ 3946 assigned to ais523 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2022 12:10:54 -0800 From: Edward Murphy To: agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org ais523 wrote: I judge CFJ 3946 FALSE. I award myself Blue Glitter. I award 9 BoC (549 coins) to ais523.
BUS: (CFJ judgement, Glitter) Re: OFF: [referee for Arbitor] CFJ 3946 assigned to ais523
On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 13:04 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-official
wrote:
> I number the below cfj 3946 and assign it to ais523:
>
> Forwarded Message
[snip]
> CFJ: secretsnail deputized to respond to at least one petition in the
> below message.
[snip]
> On 2/3/2022 11:15 AM, Mark Wieland via agora-official wrote:
[snip]
> > I do the following actions if they all succeed:
> > {
[snip]
> > I resign as arbitor.
> >
> > I temporarily deputize as arbitor to respond to the petition to
> > transfer secretsnail 2 coins with "no".
> >
> > I award myself cyan glitter.
> >
> > I petition the arbitor to transfer me 3 coins.
> >
> > I resign as arbitor.
[snip]
> > }
I judge CFJ 3946 FALSE. I award myself Blue Glitter.
Arguments:
{{{
There are a number of ways in which secretsnail might have failed to
deputise to respond to a petition in the message in question, and thus
a number of issues in the CFJ:
* Is it possible to submit a petition to a vacant office?
* Is it possible to resign an office while it has obligations, then
deputise to fulfil them?
* Is an "I do the following actions if they all succeed" conditional
something that is capable of working in the case where there's legal
uncertainty about whether the actions succeed or not?
* In the list of actions which was actually given, was it actually
possible for all of them to succeed?
For the CFJ to be TRUE, all these points would have to be TRUE.
However, at least the fourth is FALSE, as can be seen by the edited-
down version of the message in question that I posted above:
secretsnail attempted to resign Arbitor twice without performing an
action which would give em the office in between, and thus it's not
possible for the second resignation to succeed (Rule 1006 requires a
player to hold an elected office to be able to resign it). As a
consequence, the "I do the following actions if they all succeed"
conditional can be resolved without any extraordinary effort: it's
clear that the actions can't *all* succeed and thus none of them were
attempted (in particular, because the attempt to resign couldn't
succeed, the attempt to deputize to respond to a petition never
happened and thus it doesn't matter whether or not it would have
worked). This is sufficient to be able to find the CFJ FALSE.
Going over the other points:
* CFJ 3916 found that it was indeed possible to submit a petition to a
vacant office, so long as the action was clearly specified as
petitioning an office rather than a person. (Note, however, that
that CFJ received enough support to be appealed – it's just that
nobody actually resolved the dependent action to appeal it. So it's
less good as a precedent than usual.) This is also consistent with
CFJ 2953, which covers the same topic. (Note, however, that CFJ 2953
is based on two sets of arguments, one of which is a misreading of
CFJ 1594's final verdict after its appeal, and the other of which
directly contradicts CFJ 1702. So it's also less good as a precedent
than usual.)
* Resigning an office and then deputising to fulfil a pending
obligations that it had is clearly POSSIBLE via rule 2160. (I can
see an outside possibility that it might be ILLEGAL, but suspect
that it isn't – even if it is, though, it doesn't prevent it
working.)
* Whether or not conditionals of that level of complexity can work at
all is probably the most interesting part of this CFJ, but
fortunately I don't have to answer it. This would be an interesting
area to look at if something similar happens again, though.
}}}
Evidence: the above-quoted message, and:
{{{
Archive links to the past CFJs mentioned in the arguments:
3916:
2953:
1594:
1702:
Excerpt from rule 1006/45:
The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement,
causing it to become vacant.
}}}
--
ais523
Judge, CFJ 3946
BUS: CFJ judgement
I call for reconsideration (again) and submit the following judgement of
FALSE
1. Facts
Despite (at the time, at least) not being the Surveyor, Cuddlebeam
attempted to
initiate 5 auctions for Estates. Four of these were of Estates owned by
Agora, and one was owned by a private party. E then called this CFJ to
determine whether any auction was indeed ongoing. While an auction is
currently ongoing, it is an oft-repeated maxim that CFJs shall be judged on
the facts at the calling of the CFJ. The question in this case is whether a
player can initiate auctions for any Estate by announcement and if not,
whether they may initate auctions for only private Estates or only Agoran
estates.
2.The meaning of the word auction
Without resorting to any dictionaries, an auction means to me a sale in
which people bid for an item and the person who bid the most wins the item.
A dictionary definition of auction is similar: an auction is "a public sale
in which goods or property are sold to the highest bidder." The previously
run auction for Estates worked in a similar way. There has been some
controversy about whether or not an auction with no possibility of sale is
indeed an auction. I ruled that it was not. PSS contended that because
under the current rules' provision for auctions, the auction itself did not
transfer Estates, my interpretation would render all auctions invalid.
However, I here affirm my previous ruling. The player transferring the
Estate to emself is similar to a person at a car auction grabbing the item
they bought. Even if transfer is not guarenteed, it is likely. I hold that
under the common sense, dictionary and game practise meaning of the word
"auction", a purported auction that is unlikely or impossible to result in
a transfer of the auctioned Estate
is no auction at all.
3.Josh's Estate
I hold that the Estate Josh T holds cannot be transferred and thus no
auction is taking place for the Estate of Antegria (under the facts at the
time of the calling). The Rules state that "A player who owns an Estate can
and may transfer it to any player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by
announcement.". This clearly regulates the transferring of Estates and
places two conditions on it ("a player who owns an Estate" and "by
announcement". It is clear neither CB nor anyone else may transfer Josh's
estate to anyone else because they do not meet the restrictions. Fun fact:
when an organization is transferred an Estate, it can never leave. rito plz.
4. Agoran Estates
Agora is not a sentient being (yet) and cannot act on its own behalf to
transfer Estates it owns. Therefore the rules create another way for
Estates to be transferred. By an auction initiated by the Surveyor. However
it also makes the judgement that this should only be done by the Surveyor,
once a month. CB is not the Surveyor, and he is attempting to initiate four
auctions at once. It is clear that the rules "limit" the action of
initiating an auction to the Surveyor. Previous judgements and messages
have invoked Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant, but that statutory cannon
applies to two conflicting statutes. I would instead invoke the principle
of both Agora and common law systems that a Rule or legislative decision
overrides any murky general ability to do something. CB's attempted actions
are outside the regulatory framework and therefore not effective. It was
clearly the intent of the writers of the rule for one Auction to happen at
once, and CB's action would disrupt the intent.
FALSE
