Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On 1/16/2020 6:42 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 21:39, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > maybe argue that > we should eliminate actions done other than by announcement I would like to keep (and in fact use more of) the "Notice" mechanism - I think it's convenient in some cases to say "person posts a notice meeting X conditions to be a valid Notice of X, if the Notice of X is valid, this whole list of changes occurs." Also, I like the flavor. The Honour version has been strangely trouble-free as methods go, especially given (or perhaps because of) how lightweight it is. I really shouldn't tempt fate by saying that... -G.
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
ais523 wrote: > 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 not altogether sure that it is, actually. R2545 says: An Auction is a way for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency. which, I believe D. Margaux's judgement argues, is equivalent to: Entities CAN give away items in exchange for a currency by Auction. You can agree or disagree with eir interpretation, obviously, but I don't see how it's possible to argue that eir interpretation doesn't provide a mechanism. The mechanism is an "Auction". -twg
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 7:18 PM AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 19:07 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > You're half right. Regulated actions have been around forever, but > > after I ruled in my manifestly terrible opinion (TBH, a frustratingly > > large portion of my opinions have been manifestly terrible) in CFJ > > 3557 that SHALL implied CAN and CAN without a method implied CAN by > > announcement, G. submitted a fix proposal. Rule 2125, "Regulated > > Actions", now says "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as > > described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly > > specified in the Rules for performing the given action." This means > > we now say that "CAN" without a "by announcement" is without effect. > > The CAN and the by announcement can be miles (or kilometers) away > > from each other, but they have to both exist. > > I don't think a CAN without a "by announcement" would be without effect > in a rule that outpowers Rule 2125. Admittedly, not all that many rules > do. Ehh. You could see it as a R217 reasonable clarification, since it would be solely disambiguatory between two possible interpretations. In any case, no rule with power greater than 3 contains a CAN. -Aris
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 19:07 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > You're half right. Regulated actions have been around forever, but > after I ruled in my manifestly terrible opinion (TBH, a frustratingly > large portion of my opinions have been manifestly terrible) in CFJ > 3557 that SHALL implied CAN and CAN without a method implied CAN by > announcement, G. submitted a fix proposal. Rule 2125, "Regulated > Actions", now says "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as > described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly > specified in the Rules for performing the given action." This means > we now say that "CAN" without a "by announcement" is without effect. > The CAN and the by announcement can be miles (or kilometers) away > from each other, but they have to both exist. I don't think a CAN without a "by announcement" would be without effect in a rule that outpowers Rule 2125. Admittedly, not all that many rules do. -- ais523
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 6:45 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 1/16/20 9:39 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > 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 > > > I think I remember hearing that the concept of regulated actions was > created because a judge ruled the other way - the Rules say that someone > "CAN" do it (even if not providing a method), so who are we to say that > that person can't do it? > > It's very possible I'm misremembering this, but if I'm not, I'm certain > someone else can describe it better than I can. You're half right. Regulated actions have been around forever, but after I ruled in my manifestly terrible opinion (TBH, a frustratingly large portion of my opinions have been manifestly terrible) in CFJ 3557 that SHALL implied CAN and CAN without a method implied CAN by announcement, G. submitted a fix proposal. Rule 2125, "Regulated Actions", now says "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action." This means we now say that "CAN" without a "by announcement" is without effect. The CAN and the by announcement can be miles (or kilometers) away from each other, but they have to both exist. -Aris
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 21:45, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I think I remember hearing that the concept of regulated actions was > created because a judge ruled the other way - the Rules say that someone > "CAN" do it (even if not providing a method), so who are we to say that > that person can't do it? > > It's very possible I'm misremembering this, but if I'm not, I'm certain > someone else can describe it better than I can. > It's a longstanding rule of statutory interpretation, alongside such other nice interpretation guides like "lists are assumed to be exhaustive unless explicitly stated otherwise", and "every word has meaning", but Agora has never incorporated real-world statutory interpretation into its jurisprudence. So indeed, without such a rule being made explicit or otherwise incorporated, it does need to be specified somehow!
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On 1/16/20 9:39 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > 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 I think I remember hearing that the concept of regulated actions was created because a judge ruled the other way - the Rules say that someone "CAN" do it (even if not providing a method), so who are we to say that that person can't do it? It's very possible I'm misremembering this, but if I'm not, I'm certain someone else can describe it better than I can. -- Jason Cobb
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 21:39, Alexis Hunt wrote: > 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 > In the alternative, perhaps we should codify ISIDTID and maybe argue that we should eliminate actions done other than by announcement, or at least clean up existing examples. Official reports, for instance, would hardly be hard-done by by requiring just a tad more explicitness (or allowing a subject line to imply the announcement, say), and that might help clean up our messy reporting controversy. Similarly, it's not actually clear to me how, exactly, motions of no confidence work, since the rule provides two contradictory methods of performing the action (one by sending a public message with a given subject line, and one by announcement, once you unravel the definitions). -Alexis
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
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
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
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. -- ais523
Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
Heh. Deja vu all over again. So this whole issue was brought up in Jan 2019, and resulted in CFJs 3693-3694. The Judge's full arguments (below) appeared only in discussion, and there was a big thread (referenced below). The judge of CFJ 3694 found that zombie auctions worked, but it was quite, er, unique to agora reasoning. But the judgement wasn't appealed for whatever reason. Then in June 2019 it was noticed again, and Falsifian proposed a legislative fix. At that time, I mentioned "here's the court case" and assembled it from the original discussion thread (that's the message below). The legislative fix drafting was dropped (I don't think because of the court case, it looks like the first drafts had difficulty with the wording and new drafts weren't proposed). 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... -- Forwarded message - From: Kerim Aydin Date: Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 1:12 PM Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix To: Hi folks, I thought we'd done this before, quite recently in fact (unless I'm misunderstanding the question!). CFJs 3693-3694 found that a zombie CAN be transferred as the result of an auction, under the current rules. The case arguments are kind of spread in Discussion, but here's a summary: On Jan 10, 2019, at 9:04 PM, twg wrote: > I CFJ: "It is generally IMPOSSIBLE for a zombie to be transferred to the > winner of a lot in a zombie auction." Caller's Arguments: Flipping the zombie master switch is Secured-2, as per the first sentence of R2532. "Transferring" a zombie as the result of an auction is defined in Rule 1885 (also power-2) as a flip of the master switch, however there's nothing there that explicitly says that the Auctioneer CAN make the transfer/flip (i.e. there's nothing that says that Agora CAN flip the switch as the result of the auction). If the auctioneer CANNOT, then my announcement above terminated the auction as per R2552. Judgement (D. Margaux, Jan 20, 2019): > I judge this CFJ FALSE for the reasons I have previously given > regarding this CFJ and CFJ 3693. [There's a prolonged discussion captured in the Court Gazette of the time, https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-January/012742.html with lots of gratuitous arguments. But I I think "the arguments" D. Margaux refers to in eir actual judgement are the following:] 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
Oops, thanks. I'll make sure the next Registrar report accounts for zombies being transferred. I think everyone but Rance collected their zombies. On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 20:11, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > I thought we'd done this before, quite recently in fact (unless I'm > misunderstanding the question!). CFJs 3693-3694 found that a zombie CAN be > transferred as the result of an auction, under the current rules. > > The case arguments are kind of spread in Discussion, but here's a summary: > > On Jan 10, 2019, at 9:04 PM, twg wrote: > > I CFJ: "It is generally IMPOSSIBLE for a zombie to be transferred to the > > winner of a lot in a zombie auction." > > Caller's Arguments: > Flipping the zombie master switch is Secured-2, as per the first sentence > of R2532. "Transferring" a zombie as the result of an auction is defined in > Rule 1885 (also power-2) as a flip of the master switch, however there's > nothing there that explicitly says that the Auctioneer CAN make the > transfer/flip (i.e. there's nothing that says that Agora CAN flip the > switch as the result of the auction). If the auctioneer CANNOT, then my > announcement above terminated the auction as per R2552. > > > Judgement (D. Margaux, Jan 20, 2019): > > I judge this CFJ FALSE for the reasons I have previously given > > regarding this CFJ and CFJ 3693. > > [There's a prolonged discussion captured in the Court Gazette of the time, > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-January/012742.html > with lots of gratuitous arguments. But I I think "the arguments" D. Margaux > refers to in eir actual judgement are the following:] > > 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. > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
Hi folks, I thought we'd done this before, quite recently in fact (unless I'm misunderstanding the question!). CFJs 3693-3694 found that a zombie CAN be transferred as the result of an auction, under the current rules. The case arguments are kind of spread in Discussion, but here's a summary: On Jan 10, 2019, at 9:04 PM, twg wrote: > I CFJ: "It is generally IMPOSSIBLE for a zombie to be transferred to the > winner of a lot in a zombie auction." Caller's Arguments: Flipping the zombie master switch is Secured-2, as per the first sentence of R2532. "Transferring" a zombie as the result of an auction is defined in Rule 1885 (also power-2) as a flip of the master switch, however there's nothing there that explicitly says that the Auctioneer CAN make the transfer/flip (i.e. there's nothing that says that Agora CAN flip the switch as the result of the auction). If the auctioneer CANNOT, then my announcement above terminated the auction as per R2552. Judgement (D. Margaux, Jan 20, 2019): > I judge this CFJ FALSE for the reasons I have previously given > regarding this CFJ and CFJ 3693. [There's a prolonged discussion captured in the Court Gazette of the time, https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-January/012742.html with lots of gratuitous arguments. But I I think "the arguments" D. Margaux refers to in eir actual judgement are the following:] 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
Maybe the best solution is your proposal and secure Master at power
threshold 1 instead of 2. If we want auction rules to be able to govern
zombies, it seems hacky to try to keep the power threshold above that
rule's power.
On Sun., Jun. 23, 2019, 10:41 James Cook, wrote:
> That rule is only power 1 and Master is secured at 2. 1885 (zombie
> auctions) is power 2.
>
> On Sun., Jun. 23, 2019, 10:08 Jason Cobb, wrote:
>
> > Maybe a more general fix would be in order for auctions?
> >
> >
> > {
> >
> > Amend Rule 2551 ("Action End") as follows:
> >
> > Amend the last paragraph to read:
> >
> > The winner of a lot SHALL pay the Auctioneer the number of the
> > Auction's currency equal to eir bid, in a single payment, in a
> > timely fashion. When e does so, if the Auctioneer CAN transfer
> > the items in that lot to that winner at will, or if the
> > Auctioneer is Agora, e immediately does so; otherwise, e SHALL
> > do so in a timely fashion.
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 6/23/19 12:17 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > I create a proposal with the following attributes and text:
> > >
> > > Title: Agora can transfer zombies
> > > Adoption index: 2.0
> > > Co-authors: none (empty list)
> > > Text below:
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions) by appending this sentence to the
> > > second-last paragraph: "If a zombie's master is Agora, then Agora CAN
> > > flip that zombie's master switch to any player at will."
> >
>
DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
That rule is only power 1 and Master is secured at 2. 1885 (zombie
auctions) is power 2.
On Sun., Jun. 23, 2019, 10:08 Jason Cobb, wrote:
> Maybe a more general fix would be in order for auctions?
>
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2551 ("Action End") as follows:
>
> Amend the last paragraph to read:
>
> The winner of a lot SHALL pay the Auctioneer the number of the
> Auction's currency equal to eir bid, in a single payment, in a
> timely fashion. When e does so, if the Auctioneer CAN transfer
> the items in that lot to that winner at will, or if the
> Auctioneer is Agora, e immediately does so; otherwise, e SHALL
> do so in a timely fashion.
>
> }
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/23/19 12:17 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > I create a proposal with the following attributes and text:
> >
> > Title: Agora can transfer zombies
> > Adoption index: 2.0
> > Co-authors: none (empty list)
> > Text below:
> >
> > Amend Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions) by appending this sentence to the
> > second-last paragraph: "If a zombie's master is Agora, then Agora CAN
> > flip that zombie's master switch to any player at will."
>
DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
I’m not seeing anything to indicate that you’re submitting that as a
proposal; if you want to, make sure you say so.
-Aris
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Maybe a more general fix would be in order for auctions?
>
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2551 ("Action End") as follows:
>
> Amend the last paragraph to read:
>
> The winner of a lot SHALL pay the Auctioneer the number of the
> Auction's currency equal to eir bid, in a single payment, in a
> timely fashion. When e does so, if the Auctioneer CAN transfer
> the items in that lot to that winner at will, or if the
> Auctioneer is Agora, e immediately does so; otherwise, e SHALL
> do so in a timely fashion.
>
> }
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/23/19 12:17 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > I create a proposal with the following attributes and text:
> >
> > Title: Agora can transfer zombies
> > Adoption index: 2.0
> > Co-authors: none (empty list)
> > Text below:
> >
> > Amend Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions) by appending this sentence to the
> > second-last paragraph: "If a zombie's master is Agora, then Agora CAN
> > flip that zombie's master switch to any player at will."
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
right, I should know this, I wrote the rule... :P On 2/24/2018 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Auctioneer defaults to Agora (R2547). On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, ATMunn wrote: Unless I'm missing something, doesn't an Auctioneer have to be specified? On 2/24/2018 12:24 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following Proposal, Zombie Lots, AI-2, co-author Aris, and pend it with shinies: - Amend Rule 1885, "Zombie Auctions", (Power = 2.0), to read in full: Whenever a zombie (1) has Agora for a master, (2) an auction for it is not underway, and (3) has not been won as an auction lot in the past 14 days, then the Registrar CAN put that zombie (along with any other zombies that fulfill the same conditions) up for auction. In a timely fashion after the beginning of each month, the Registrar SHALL either initiate such an auction or, if no zombies meeting these conditions existed at the beginning of the month, announce that no such auction is necessary. For such an auction, the lots are the qualifying zombies, ordered at the discretion of the Registrar. The Registrar is the announcer, and the minimum bid is 1. The Registrar CAN flip the master switch of a zombie lot from Agora to that lot's winner after the winner has paid for the lot; for the purposes of the auction, to transfer a zombie to a player is to set that zombie's master switch to that player. [The termination clause elsewhere takes care of situations where the zombie ceases being owned by Agora]. -
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
Auctioneer defaults to Agora (R2547). On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, ATMunn wrote: > Unless I'm missing something, doesn't an Auctioneer have to be specified? > > On 2/24/2018 12:24 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > I submit the following Proposal, Zombie Lots, AI-2, co-author Aris, and > > pend it with shinies: > > > > > > - > > Amend Rule 1885, "Zombie Auctions", (Power = 2.0), to read in full: > > Whenever a zombie (1) has Agora for a master, (2) an auction for it > >is not underway, and (3) has not been won as an auction lot in the > >past 14 days, then the Registrar CAN put that zombie (along with any > >other zombies that fulfill the same conditions) up for auction. > > > >In a timely fashion after the beginning of each month, the Registrar > >SHALL either initiate such an auction or, if no zombies meeting these > >conditions existed at the beginning of the month, announce that no > >such auction is necessary. > > > >For such an auction, the lots are the qualifying zombies, ordered at > >the discretion of the Registrar. The Registrar is the announcer, and > >the minimum bid is 1. > > > >The Registrar CAN flip the master switch of a zombie lot from Agora > >to that lot's winner after the winner has paid for the lot; for the > >purposes of the auction, to transfer a zombie to a player is to set > >that zombie's master switch to that player. > > > > > > [The termination clause elsewhere takes care of situations where the > > zombie ceases being owned by Agora]. > > > > > > - > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
Unless I'm missing something, doesn't an Auctioneer have to be specified? On 2/24/2018 12:24 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following Proposal, Zombie Lots, AI-2, co-author Aris, and pend it with shinies: - Amend Rule 1885, "Zombie Auctions", (Power = 2.0), to read in full: Whenever a zombie (1) has Agora for a master, (2) an auction for it is not underway, and (3) has not been won as an auction lot in the past 14 days, then the Registrar CAN put that zombie (along with any other zombies that fulfill the same conditions) up for auction. In a timely fashion after the beginning of each month, the Registrar SHALL either initiate such an auction or, if no zombies meeting these conditions existed at the beginning of the month, announce that no such auction is necessary. For such an auction, the lots are the qualifying zombies, ordered at the discretion of the Registrar. The Registrar is the announcer, and the minimum bid is 1. The Registrar CAN flip the master switch of a zombie lot from Agora to that lot's winner after the winner has paid for the lot; for the purposes of the auction, to transfer a zombie to a player is to set that zombie's master switch to that player. [The termination clause elsewhere takes care of situations where the zombie ceases being owned by Agora]. -
