At the time when they placed the bid, because the rule is phrased as happening at that time but depending upon future information. That's the one thing I can think of which isn't great, and why I said _significantly_ worse.
-Aris On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:08 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > For the purposes of the 14-day limit on finger pointing, when does the > violation occur? > > On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Your argument about the definition is complelling in light of the general > > interpretive factors at play. On the merits I think I still disagree > > (though that may just be me being stubborn), but common sense and the > > interests of the game are clear. > > > > On the future conditional, I disagree. The conditional is clearly a > future > > conditional, and given that it occurs in a rule we have no reason to > > evaluate it prematurely. In this case, the interpretive factors are > > actually on my side, given that it would not be in the interest of the > game > > to permit defaulted bids. I can't see why it's significantly worse than > the > > alternative we would amend it to, which would be considering it a > violation > > not to have the money at the end of the voting period. In fact, this is > in > > some ways philosophically superior, given that the persons own action is > > considered the violation. > > > > -Arso > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:08 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Gratuitous: > > > > > > "Allowed to act on behalf" in R2532 is a specific and intentional > > > reference to > > > "allows [...] to act on behalf" in Rule 2466: > > > > > > When a rule allows one person (the agent) to act on behalf of > > > another (the principal) to perform an action, that agent CAN > > > perform the action if it is POSSIBLE for the principal to do so, > > > taking into account any prerequisites for the action. > > > > > > So in this particular context, "allowed to act on behalf" implies "CAN > act > > > on > > > behalf". > > > > > > At least that was the direct and specific intent when I wrote it - I > > > intended > > > illegal actions on behalf of zombies to fail because they weren't > > > "allowed", > > > therefore blocking the CAN in R2466. Intent doesn't always mean much, > and > > > I can see that the link to R2466 isn't abundantly clear, but that > "allows" > > > in > > > R2466 should definitely be considered in this context. > > > > > > What's more interesting to me on this case is whether it "would be > > > impossible" > > > for the zombie to pay. It requires evaluating a future conditional to > see > > > if > > > a current bid is legal. In this case, the strict impossibility (lack > of > > > funds) would have been easily overcome before the end-of-auction if > Corona > > > had > > > given Quazie a Coin before the auction ended. Do we decide the > > > impossibility > > > based on the immediate condition (Quazie not having a coin during > > > bidding)? > > > > > > If this were the intent, why not just cancel the bid when it happens > and > > > not > > > at the end of the auction? The Rule clearly allows bidding if you > expect > > > to > > > be able to pay in future (e.g. if you expected the beginning of the > month > > > to > > > happen before the auction ended, to give you salary). > > > > > > I tend to think "impossible" in this future conditional should apply > only > > > to > > > things clearly impossible that can't be made possible with expected > > > resources > > > without a rule change - e.g. bidding i, or aleph-null, or more coins > than a > > > player could reasonably expect to accumulate, in an attempt to spike > the > > > auction. If Corona fully intends to give Quazie a Coin, and Corona > has a > > > coin, I don't think you could say it was Impossible (when the bid was > made) > > > for Quazie to pay at the end of the auction. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > I point my finger at Corona for violations of Rule 2532, "Zombies", > > > > and/or Rule 2466, "Acting on Behalf", committed by causing Quazie to > > > > violate Rule 2550, "Bidding". I CFJ, barring G., on the statement > > > > 'Rule 2532, "Zombies", enables zombie owners to act on behalf of > their > > > > zombies.' I CFJ, barring Corona, on the statement 'Corona has > > > > violated of Rule 2532, "Zombies", and/or Rule 2466, "Acting on > > > > Behalf", by causing Quazie to violate Rule 2550 "Bidding".' > > > > > > > > [For reference, I don't really see how a violation could have been > > > > committed, but this is all rather unclear and I'd like to see what > > > > people think." > > > > > > > > Arguments: > > > > > > > > If Quazie bid in the auction, e committed a violation of Rule 2550, > > > > "Bidding", and in particular the provision that "A person SHALL NOT > > > > bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for em to pay that amount > > > > at the conclusion of the Auction." Quazie did not have any money at > > > > the time of the bid, and did not get any by the end of the auction. > We > > > > clearly do not hold em culpable for this violation, given that we do > > > > not in general hold people responsible for violations they could not > > > > reasonably have avoided, but the violation remains nevertheless. > > > > > > > > If Corona successfully caused Quazie to bid, e violated Rule 2466, > > > > "Acting on Behalf", and specifically the provision that "A person > > > > SHALL NOT act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the > > > > second person to violate the rules." What remains in question is > > > > whether or not Corona's action succeeded. There are three > > > > possibilities: it succeeded, it failed in this specific case, or it > > > > never works at all. I believe that it is one of the later two. > > > > > > > > The crucial question is one of interpreting Rule 2532, "Zombies". > > > > which states that "A zombie's master, if another player, is allowed > to > > > > act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the zombie's agent) to perform > > > > LEGAL actions." The phrase "allowed to" is ambiguous, it could mean > > > > CAN or MAY, although I find it somewhat unlikely that it means both > of > > > > them at once. If it means CAN, then the action failed because the > > > > action was ILLEGAL, and the affixed conditional resolves to false. > > > > > > > > I believe that the phrase probably means MAY. Granted, the Rule 217 > > > > factors suggest that the phrase means CAN, but I don't think that > they > > > > can overturn the presumption to the contrary in this case. I'm not > > > > saying that "allow' can never mean "enable', but reading "allowed to" > > > > to mean "able to" doesn't really sound right. For instance, seems > > > > reasonable for someone to say "I will allow you to open your mind", > > > > but (to my ears) it sounds ridiculous to say that "you are allowed to > > > > open your mind". I think the only reason there even appears to be > > > > ambiguity is because of preconceived notions of what the zombie rule > > > > means. Reading the text without judgement, the MAY reading is the > > > > obvious one. Under this reading, there is no provision anywhere that > > > > says that an owner CAN act on behalf of a zombie, so e can't. > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
