Perhaps the finger pointing rule should be rewritten to start the time limit when the legality status of the action first becomes ILLEGAL, so that there is always enough time to point a finger.
Anyways, even if the Referee decides to levy a fine on me, this is like the smallest offense imaginable. It just clutters the forum a bit, maybe confuses other bidders, and it was unintentional. I suggest a fine of 0.5 Blots. ~Corona On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:05 AM, 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
