As someone who had a hand in the language of bids being invalid or not, I just want to add that my intent as far as my proposals went was that invalid bids are still considered bids.  For example, they are still considered bids when it comes to calculating minimum bid increment.  I explicitly stated this in the comment field on the minimum bid increment proposal, if anyone wants to dig through the archives and check.

Actually, now that I look at it, I take that back, invalid bids don’t count towards minimum bid increment.  But my intent *was* for “valid bid” and “invalid bid” to both be types of bids.

We have in “Numbers and Variables”

“Invalid values for game variables can never be used”

I can never use invalid values. My bids were illegal, and therefore never existed, formally (same how using a Veto icon while not being Emperor doesn’t count for anything=.

(adding that)

Bids are not game variables, and nowhere in the ruleset does it say what could possibly be an “invalid value” for a bid.

A bid is part of the game, plus its a variable (because I can choose its value). So I believe its a game variable (although one with a very local effect).

Otherwise I could bid with $Potato or $Infinity+1.

It’s not variable.  Once you post it, it has one value (the one you gave it) and it cannot ever be changed.  That is the definition of a constant, which is the opposite of a variable.

And I mean, there’s nothing stopping you from bidding $Potato if you want to.  That just makes it an invalid bid, according to the rules.

Well, alright. I don’t have time to develop it all right now, so I’ll just leave it at there are two separate ways that can be taken to prove that my bids were null, by definition and by the Appendix’s definition.

I agree that “Invalid values for game variables can never be used” would mean that the text “I bid $Potato” is not a bid because you used an invalid value for the variable; however bids themselves are not a variable, the amount you put up for the bid is. So any number used after the “$” makes it a bid that exists, whether the bid itself is invalid will be in accordance to the rules. 

I just seems arbitrary that the bids wouldn’t count for the auction winning but would count for the amount of bids you can do.

It’s either both or none.

Anti-spam measures seem pretty reasonable to me.

Yeah. Still not explicit though. I’ll add it though, its another argument I believe is interesting.

Why is that awkward? Bids are given the labels “valid” and “invalid” which determine whether a bid is eligible for winning an auction a la “When the auction is closed, the Manager who had the valid bid . . .” and then the ruleset earlier dictates what makes a bid invalid.
One of those conditions is “The bidding manager having already made three bids on this auction.” which doesn’t care about the bid’s status of valid or invalid.

I think “invalid” and “valid” are both valid values for the game variable of a bid to have.

Also, it does seem arbitrary because the rules aren’t perfect. I agree that counting only valid bids would make more sense, but that’s not what the rules say at the moment.

Except there was no cap on the number of possible bids one can make, “For the purposes of this auction, the procedure in Auctions will be followed, but the clause reading, “The bidding manager having already made three bids on this auction.” will not apply.”

Sphinx, Cuddlebeam, card: Except the validity does not matter, because the bid cap did not apply.

Sorry, I was reading the wrong rule, but I think he either won with his final bid as it was valid or his other bids became valid meaning he won with a bid of $1,649,874. Any other interpretation seems arbitrary because it would count it one way for one thing and another way for another thing.

Even if all bids are valid, the $1,649,874 bid was already the fourth bid, and I believe the bid cap does apply. In that case of course, I would have to pay more.

[PSS] Looking over “For the purposes of this auction, the procedure in Auctions will be followed, but the clause reading, “The bidding manager having already made three bids on this auction.” will not apply.”
The auction that this text is referring to is the auction for the right to oversee the final bowl games. Full text here

“The Commissioner shall auction in a public non-silent auction, the right to oversee all games of the Final Bowl as a collective unit whoever wins the auction may oversee the games themselves or delegate oversight to another manager. For the purposes of this auction, the procedure in Auctions will be followed, but the clause reading, “The bidding manager having already made three bids on this auction.” will not apply.”

And in the time machine section it made no mention of that rule being invalid. Reread your proposal if you want https://blognomic.com/archive/purchasable_experiences

@Card: He already admitted that lol.

The point still stands that its arbitrary that invalid works only for auction-winning but not for the cap.

Sphinx’s brings up a point though, that if “invalid” is just a tag like “red” (lets replace all instances of “invalid"with “red”). Nowhere does it say that “red” bids can’t win auctions. So if we go by that, I’ve still won the auction lol, because I’d still have the highest bid.

[beam] No, you need a valid bid to win.

“When the auction is closed, the Manager who had the valid bid with the highest value X that is at least 10% greater than the next highest valid bid on that post (or is the only valid bid on that post) spends X from their Cash to employ that Blogger . . .”

per the general line of argument by card & Sphinx, IMO valid bids (which are the only kind that can win an auction) and invalid bids are both types of bids, and all bids of both types count toward the limit. It’s maybe not the intent of the rules but the intent is ambiguous as written, as Oracular rufio points out, so we can defer to the more clear literal rule text.

for gameplay convenience (I still disagree with some points though, but we can carry on)