Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
Whoops, thanks. > On Feb 2, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > No, R2532/2: "A zombie's master CAN flip that zombie's master switch to Agora > by announcement." > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 10:04 PM, D. Margaux >> wrote: >> >> I think the second action fails for the same reason, no? >> On Feb 2, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I transfer all Tenhigitsune's liquid assets to myself, flip eir master switch to Agora, and bid 1 coin in this auction. >>> >>> You forgot to act on behalf, so the first action fails. >>> Greetings, >>> Ørjan. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
No, R2532/2: "A zombie's master CAN flip that zombie's master switch to Agora by announcement." -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, February 2, 2019 10:04 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I think the second action fails for the same reason, no? > > > On Feb 2, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > I transfer all Tenhigitsune's liquid assets to myself, flip eir master > > > switch to Agora, and bid 1 coin in this auction. > > > > You forgot to act on behalf, so the first action fails. > > Greetings, > > Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
I think the second action fails for the same reason, no? > On Feb 2, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> I transfer all Tenhigitsune's liquid assets to myself, flip eir master >> switch to Agora, and bid 1 coin in this auction. > > You forgot to act on behalf, so the first action fails. > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
Meant to reply to twg’s comments on the zombie auction CFJ earlier, but got a bit busy this week. A few thoughts for your consideration: > Twg wrote: > > The implication would seem to be that rules can redefine what other rules > mean. This does seem to me to be one reasonable approach to interpreting a code of rules—to interpret a provision in light of provisions in other rules, in a manner that tries to harmonize the rules into a consistent whole. That might feel reasonable to me because it’s a common discursive move in the area of my specialty (law). People from other backgrounds might find it less satisfying or reasonable, though, which could be an example of the sort of diversity of interpretive method that I think can be very cool about Agora. > But if, say, we had a rule saying "All rules begin with the word 'Tangelo'.", > a statement which is manifestly untrue (at least at present), surely that > should not be interpreted as a requirement to play the game _as if_ every > rule began with the word "Tangelo". (Perhaps it could be interpreted as a > redefinition of the word "rule", but then it would need to be at least power > 3, to override rule 2141.) I think the logic is similar. In this hypothetical, i can see several approaches: Maybe the Tangelo Rule would have no effect if it were contradicted by a higher powered rule (e.g., Rule 105, which purports to be the “only mechanism by which rules can be created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule or cease to be a rule”). Absent a contradictory higher powered Rule, I think the Tangelo Rule (1) could invalidate any lower powered Rule that does not begin with Tangelo, on the theory that it wouldn’t actually be a Rule, or (2) alternatively, it could cause us to insert the word “Tangelo” at the beginning of any lower powered Rule, on the theory that the lower powered Rule, qua Rule, must include the word “Tangelo” at the start. And for higher powered Rules, we might either (1) insert “Tangelo” at the start (if that does not affect the functioning of the higher powered rule) or else (2) ignore the Tangelo Rule altogether (because contradicted by higher powered Rules). I suppose we could also just decide that the Tangelo Rule states an untrue fact about the world and therefore has no effect, but that approach seems to me to be in tension with Rule 217: “When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence.” Simply disregarding as factually wrong a high-enough-powered Tangelo Rule, I think, would give precedence to something other than the text of the rules. Maybe.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
On Friday, January 11, 2019 2:02 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > All right, I'll concede the text of the rules is technically a "physical" > reality. *technically _not_ a "physical" reality. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
All right, I'll concede the text of the rules is technically a "physical" reality. But if, say, we had a rule saying "All rules begin with the word 'Tangelo'.", a statement which is manifestly untrue (at least at present), surely that should not be interpreted as a requirement to play the game _as if_ every rule began with the word "Tangelo". (Perhaps it could be interpreted as a redefinition of the word "rule", but then it would need to be at least power 3, to override rule 2141.) I think the logic is similar. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, January 11, 2019 1:44 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > I think this argument doesn't work because, according to the FLR, CFJs > > 1911-1914 set the precedent that "Physical realities supersede the Rules > > by default" - in this case, the physical reality that no rule defines a > > process for zombie transferral overrides the rule that says zombie > > transferral is possible, somehow, as part of an auction. But I'm not > > confident enough in that interpretation to judge the case. > > The content of the Rules surely must be the exactopposite of what > "physical reality" refers to in those judgements? > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I think this argument doesn't work because, according to the FLR, CFJs 1911-1914 set the precedent that "Physical realities supersede the Rules by default" - in this case, the physical reality that no rule defines a process for zombie transferral overrides the rule that says zombie transferral is possible, somehow, as part of an auction. But I'm not confident enough in that interpretation to judge the case. The content of the Rules surely must be the exact _opposite_ of what "physical reality" refers to in those judgements? Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
Well this is an interesting argument. The implication would seem to be that rules can redefine what other rules mean. I.e., in this case, there is a rule that says there is a process by which zombies can be transferred as part of an auction, so there is such a process, even though the rules that are supposed to define the process technically don't. I think this argument doesn't work because, according to the FLR, CFJs 1911-1914 set the precedent that "Physical realities supersede the Rules by default" - in this case, the physical reality that no rule defines a process for zombie transferral overrides the rule that says zombie transferral is possible, somehow, as part of an auction. But I'm not confident enough in that interpretation to judge the case. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 10, 2019 7:42 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Jan 10, 2019, at 1:17 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote: > > I terminate this auction, as per R2552. > > I CFJ: The zombie auction for January 2019 has been terminated. > > Gratuitous counterarguement: > > The CFJ is FALSE, because a necessary implication of the Rules is that Agora > CAN transfer a zombie pursuant to a properly initiated Rule 1885 zombie > auction. > > Under Rule 2545 (power=2), “An Auction is a way for entities to give away > items in exchange for a currency.” By necessarily implication, if a Rule with > high enough power authorizes some player to initiate an auction with a > particular item as a lot, then that Rule also necessarily authorizes that > player to initiate a process that would “give away [that] item[] in exchange > for a currency.” That’s what an auction is under the Rules. > > Under Rule 1885 (power=2), at the start of the month, “the Registrar CAN put > [a] zombie [that meets certain conditions] (along with any other zombies that > fulfill the same conditions) up for auction.” By necessary implication, read > in conjunction with Rule 2545, that means that a zombie can be transferred > pursuant to that auction. Otherwise it wouldn’t be an auction at all—a way of > transferring an item for currency. It would be something else entirely. > > This interpretation is consistent with the best interests of the game and > ordinary language. There’s no reason to adopt a contrary interpretation, > which would break auctions and zombies.
