> On Jun 14, 2019, at 2:29 AM, David Seeber <davidsee...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> If this is accepted, {
>
> { I cfj the following:
>
> "Trigon is the winner of the auction"
>
> Argument in favour :
>
> Trigon bid two coins, which is more than CuddleBeam bid.
> The highest bidder wins the auction.
> Therefore Trigon wins the auction.
> }
>
> AND
>
> { I point my finger at the Auctioneer for failing in eir duty, which was
> evidently to either dismiss or acknowledge the bid of two coins by Trigon,
> instead of ignoring it.}
>
> }
This attempted finger pointing is subject to an inextricable conditional. Does
that mean that it is INEFFECTIVE per Rule 2517? That Rule defines certain
conditions as extricable or inextricable, but doesn't seem to say that that
distinction matters for purposes of EFFECTIVENESS.
