Excuse me, these are 2 CFJs. Would Agora see fit to interpret my actions as assigning both CFJs to myself?
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > I assign this CFJ to myself, being without objections. > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think you intended to assign a CFJ to yourself about 8 days ago, G. >> Should probably do so. >> >> I intend to assign this CFJ to myself without 3 objections. >> >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I find Shenanigans. Since the zombie act-on-behalf rule means >>> Corona CANNOT cause Quazie to perform illegal actions: >>> -If the bid was illegal, it failed and no crime was commited; >>> -If the bid was legal, no crime was committed. >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
