On 5/22/21 4:54 PM, Falsifian wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:59:30PM -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 5/19/21 10:05 PM, Falsifian wrote: >>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 05:03:30PM -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion >>> wrote: >>>> On 5/17/21 12:00 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >>>>> The below CFJ is 3905. I assign it to Jason. >>>>> >>>>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3905 >>>>> >>>>> =============================== CFJ 3905 =============================== >>>>> >>>>> With the above-quoted message, Trigon revoked 400 Coins from >>>>> Falsifian. >>>>> >>>>> ========================================================================== >>>>> >>>>> Caller: Falsifian >>>>> >>>>> Judge: Jason >>>> Draft judgment: >>> Interesting. So, the rule text that authorizes the revoking and >>> granting is "e CAN do so by any wholly public method...", the method >>> being AM/0? >>> >>> That makes sense! However, if it pleases the court, you may wish to >>> consider one more thought: >>> >>>> { >>>> >>>> First, I find that, at the time of the resolution of the auction, the >>>> special status of auction regulations did apply to the operation of the >>>> auction in question. The new text came into force as regulations at [0], >>>> which was before the auction was resolved. Rule 2545, which grants >>>> auction regulations special powers, is evaluated continuously, and the >>>> method that the auction was being conducted through was, at the time of >>>> its resolution, defined by auction regulation. The fact that the auction >>>> regulations changed during the auction is irrelevant. >>> The method of the auction was not Regulation AM/0 itself. It was the >>> draft of AM/0, published at >>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-April/014857.html >>> See the initiation message: >>> >>> | I, Trigon, the Treasuror of Agora Nomic, being authorized by Rule 2629/0 >>> | and furthermore being required to do so at least once a month, do hereby >>> | initiate a Victory Auction. >>> | >>> | As the Lost and Found Department owns no assets other than coins, the >>> | sole lot is a new Victory Card. >>> | >>> | The currency for this auction shall be the coin. >>> | >>> | The procedure for this auction shall be a Forward Auction, as described >>> | by the April 2021 draft of the Treasuror's Auction Regulations which can >>> | be found at the following link: >>> | >>> | >>> <https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-April/014857.html> >>> | >>> | -- >>> | Trigon >>> >>> On May 5, Trigon amended the text of AM/0 to match the draft, but this >>> did not cause the draft itself to become a regulation. >> I don't think this ultimately affects the outcome, but that's a fair point. >> >> >>> The Court's draft judgement would suggest that an amendment to a >>> definition in an auction regulation (AM/0 in this case) can affect an >>> ongoing auction, even if that auction's method is not regulation-based! >> Finding the opposite way would suggest that two auction methods with >> identical texts could be interpreted differently (since the >> pre-regulation method wouldn't be affected by the rules text >> interpretation clause), which is also probably not ideal. >> >> >>> One way to tell whether a specific auction method is in use is whether >>> it has some name like "the default auction method" (example from the >>> rule text). The auction in question was "a Forward Auction, as >>> described by the April 2021 draft ...". This clearly is not a reference >>> to a "specific auction method" defined in a regulation. >>> >> I think (without specific textual evidence) that two auction methods >> with identical text are identical. Assuming that is true, then the >> Victory Auction's method is currently defined by regulation. If you >> think the premise is false (which is a perfectly reasonable stance), >> could you explain your reasoning? > Actually, I'm a little confused now. Does it actually matter whether > the auction was conducted under AM/0?
Not with the rest of the judgment. The authorization doesn't come from the regulation, and the interpretation is (AFAICT) the same either way. I think I'll just drop the parts on that and make it clear that it's irrelevant. The rest of your email makes some good points, and I'm now much less convinced of my position. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
