Wednesday, November 03, 2021

Call for Judgment: Day and Night

Timed out and enacted, 5-2. Josh

Adminned at 05 Nov 2021 09:07:00 UTC

A dispute has arisen in an auction post about the legality of Day and Night actions (hereafter Auction Actions) when the author is the auctioneer.

The relevant passage of the ruleset is:

The Realtor who posted each Auction is the Auctioneer for that Auction. An Auction’s Auctioneer may not make a Valid Bid on it, although they may undertake Day or Night actions on it.

A Bid is defined as a comment that ‘contains a single, whole number’, while a Auction Action is defined as a ‘single comment in one of the formats in the following list’, all of which contain the addresses being affected and, therefore, a single, whole number. It is not possible to modify the Auction Action to get around this, as the format of the action comment is prescribed. An auction action therefore is also always a bid.

TyGuy’s argument is that, as the Auctioneer on the Auction, I therefore can’t carry out the Auction Action as the Auction Action is also a bid and I can’t make bids. My argument is twofold:
1) If it is true that an Auction Action is always both a Bid and an Auction Action (and it seems like that’s the case), then the Bid may be illegal, but that doesn’t mean that the Auction Action is illegal as well. The rule explicitly says “An Auction’s Auctioneer [...] may undertake Day or Night actions on it”, and the principle established elsewhere in the ruleset is that the game can selectively accept the legal parts of a text while rejecting the illegal parts of it.

2) If we apply the rule that way consistently then we have… problems. For example: Jumble should have won this auction with a bid of 100, or have been prevented from Repairing due to not having enough Bucks to make the Auction Action comment. It might mean that Auction Actions are all actually illegal, as Auction Actions can only be made when an Auctioneer has no Valid Bid; but if they themselvesare a Valid Bid then the status of those actions becomes very hazy and probably illegal.

The remedy, then, is to make the rule work as intended, I think: uphold that all Day or Night Actions to have taken place prior to the posting of this CfJ were legally carried out, except for those to have been made illegal by a previous CfJ. Uphold my Day Action in this auction post. In the rule Whose to Sell, after the text ‘which contains a single, whole number’, add ‘and is not in the format of a Day or Night Action’.

posted by Josh at 03 Nov 2021 08:09:00 UTC Comments (12)

Comments

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

03-11-2021 14:20:38 UTC

for

Brendan: he/him

03-11-2021 14:46:11 UTC

for

TyGuy6:

03-11-2021 17:47:20 UTC

Part (1) is only half true. If a rule allows you to do something, but forbids you from doing it under certain circumstances, you must follow that more specific restriction. For example, if a rule said that Realtors could submit bids, but another rule said that the Auctioneer could not submit a bid on that Auction, the Prioritization Rule would uphold the restriction. I will admit that this case is hazy, due to how both are composed in one sentence.

Part (2) is fully incorrect. I’ve been watching for illegal bid actions this whole game, and none have been up to this point. Jumble didn’t have 100 when he made his comment, and so it wasn’t a Valid Bid, nor even a Bid, by any written definition. And “Auction Actions can only be made when an Auctioneer has no Valid Bid” is not a thing.

Seeing as a CfJ can correct the ruleset to match people’s expectations, it’s within Josh’s ability to make this change, and uphold his previously illegal action. I just don’t see it as urgent or correct enough to warrant a CfJ solution. against

Brendan: he/him

03-11-2021 18:30:00 UTC

... Pretty clear that “two or more Realtors actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset,” though.

TyGuy6:

03-11-2021 18:46:18 UTC

Right. My point is that if Josh broke a rule, but we all want the rule changed, it’s not right to pass this CfJ just to make it be changed. It’s not in the spirit of allowing rule interactions to play out.

That said, who really cares that Josh broke this tiniest rule? If this were deciding whether he won or not, I might have a leg to stand on.

Silverwing: she/her

03-11-2021 19:09:16 UTC

for

Chiiika: she/her

03-11-2021 19:15:09 UTC

against

Josh: Observer he/they

03-11-2021 22:17:38 UTC

@TyGuy Re point 2, I think you’re not following your logic through.

If Auctioneer can’t make a Bid, and Auction Actions are also Bids, therefore Auctioneer can’t make Auction Actions:

then

If Realtor can’t make a Bid because they don’t have enough Bucks, and Auction Actions are also Bids, then Realtor also can’t make Auction Actions

The same logic applies, no?

What you’re voting for here is: either Jumble can only improve 100 Dade when is also willing to make a 100 Bucks bid, or he can’t improve 100 Dade ever.

I disagree with you on point 1 but you have at least acknowledged the ambiguity, so no need to thrash it into the ground. I will say that if you agree that there is an ambiguity, then your argument that I broke a rule - and that all this CfJ is doing is changing the ruletext - is incorrect on its face; resolving an ambiguity is a perfectly acceptable reason to justify a CfJ.

TyGuy6:

03-11-2021 23:02:56 UTC

Auction Actions that say 100 aren’t Valid Bids when the bidder doesn’t have 100, and there is no definition for Invalid Bids. Therefore Anyone holding fewer than 100 can freely improve 100 Dade, not to mention the other, non-numerical actions that are open to be taken on an Auction Post. It’s all clear enough in my mind.

TyGuy6:

03-11-2021 23:05:19 UTC

Ah, I see the problem. I suppose you took an implied meaning for Bids, when they were never defined in the ruleset? And so you believe if a ‘Bid’ were invalid, it would be illegal to make?

Josh: Observer he/they

03-11-2021 23:12:11 UTC

No, I don’t - I believe that that’s a logical corollary of your interpretation of my actions.

Raven1207: he/they

05-11-2021 03:57:03 UTC

for