Story Post: Case 15: Robert v. Goldberg Technology
In this Negligence case, Robert accuses Goldberg Technology of neglecting to file earnings reports in a timely manner, causing Robert to have lost on potential trading earnings.
In this Negligence case, Robert accuses Goldberg Technology of neglecting to file earnings reports in a timely manner, causing Robert to have lost on potential trading earnings.
posted by pokes at 13 Dec 2018 23:34:00 UTC Comments (4)
BlogNomic is an online Nomic: a self-modifying game where changing the rules is part of the game. Players make blog posts proposing additions or alterations to the ruleset, discussing and casting votes in the comments: if enough vote in favour, the rules are changed and play continues.
The game has been running since 2003 and resets every month or so. New players are always welcome and can join in at any time.
BlogNomic is powered by pMachine ExpressionEngine.
0.5307
Comments
Kevan: he/him
pokes:
Robert did lose some significant trading earnings, and Goldberg Technology’s filings were seemingly late. However, the charge’s detonation pattern has been demonstrated to have had a higher-than-usual Robertson’s speckling coefficient, plausibly causing a reasonable delay. This case is closed. Goldberg Technology is the winner, and the fine is $81,000.
pokes:
Actually, this fine is pending. The judge finds that Robert’s finances deserve a thorough audit before a fine can be conclusively determined.
pokes:
The audit is complete. An error at the bank had changed Robert’s account balance instead of Anne’s when resolving the fine for Case 10. Having corrected the error, the fine is fixed at $81,000; not the $72,090 that his displayed balance would have suggested.
(My local view of worths, which I consider to be canonical, and were correct, got out of sync with the Ruleset when I updated Robert instead of Anne in this diff. Apologies to anyone who may have been slighted by this small error, e.g. if they did not request Robert as a client because they saw his net worth to be 10% lower than it was.)