If I recall correctly, there used to be a thing in rule 2551 that meant the
clause "if the auctioneer CAN transfer the items... at will" didn't apply if
the auctioneer was Agora. That seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the
line - possibly in proposal 8113, which removed a sentence but I'm not sure
which one.
-twg
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Saturday, June 15, 2019 5:52 AM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:40 PM James Cook jc...@cs.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
> > Ha, maybe. Here's another argument, though: Master is secured at a
> > power threshold of 2. Rule 2551 ("Auction End") only has power 1. I
> > doubt Rule 2551 can get around that by saying it's Agora doing it
> > rather than R2551, but if it can, I guess that could be used as an
> > escalation scam.
>
> Good catch. And it wouldn't get around that. As far as I know, Agora
> doesn't have its Power set, so Agora wouldn't have any more right to
> flip the switch than R2552.
>
> If Agora did have its Power set, then causing Agora to act would
> likely fall under
>
> 3. set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument
> with power greater than its own. A "substantive" aspect of an
> instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument's
> operation.
>
> ...or if not, there's a big hole in general. I think there might
> actually be precedent regarding this, since there have been a bunch of
> Power escalation scam attempts in the past, but I guess it's a moot
> point in this case.
