Thursday, May 11, 2017

Call for Judgment: Time Machine

Timed out. 1-4 failed by card.

Adminned at 15 May 2017 04:04:33 UTC

We lack a clear definition for what “invalid” is and this CfJ unfortunately depends on that.

I believe that “invalid” means that it has no formal representation within the game. It’s “invisible” to it, as per the legal definition of it, which I believe is the proper form to use it (instead of using “invalid” as “disabled” as in “disabled person” or other uses)

Invalid: Null; void; without force or effect; lacking in authority.

(from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/invalid)

Therefore, all of my bids before the $1 are null and void. Without force nor effect (for better or worse). What’s more:

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). So, a legal and invalid bid cannot exist. They’re just bogus posts.

So there are two separate arguments via the which my bids can be taken to be proved to be null. By definition, and by the Appendix’s restriction.

Therefore, my only legal bids and therefore consideration from the Ruleset, are my $1 and my $550,885 bid. And since the $550,885 one is the last valid bid, I should’ve won the Time Machine auction.

Upon enactment of this CfJ, it will be recognized that the Manager called Cuddlebeam has won the Time Machine Auction that started at 09 MAY 2017 21:25:00 UTC. Have Cuddlebeam take possession of the Time Machine as per being the auction winner.

It would be pretty arbitrary that invalid bids wouldn’t count for auction winning but do count for the limit on how many bids you can do. The bid is either “read” by the rules, or its not, imo.

Comments

Oracular rufio:

11-05-2017 22:21:18 UTC

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.

Oracular rufio:

11-05-2017 22:25:30 UTC

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.

Madrid:

11-05-2017 22:37:08 UTC

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=.

Madrid:

11-05-2017 22:37:23 UTC

(adding that)

Oracular rufio:

11-05-2017 22:38:49 UTC

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

Madrid:

11-05-2017 22:41:05 UTC

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.

Oracular rufio:

11-05-2017 22:42:18 UTC

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.

Oracular rufio:

11-05-2017 22:44:23 UTC

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.

Madrid:

11-05-2017 22:47:35 UTC

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.

card:

11-05-2017 22:57:25 UTC

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.  against

Madrid:

11-05-2017 23:22:27 UTC

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.

Oracular rufio:

11-05-2017 23:28:20 UTC

Anti-spam measures seem pretty reasonable to me.

Madrid:

11-05-2017 23:43:45 UTC

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

card:

12-05-2017 05:10:56 UTC

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.

Sphinx:

12-05-2017 05:45:06 UTC

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

Sphinx:

12-05-2017 07:46:11 UTC

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.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: he/they

12-05-2017 09:36:40 UTC

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.”

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: he/they

12-05-2017 09:41:46 UTC

for

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: he/they

12-05-2017 09:42:32 UTC

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

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: he/they

12-05-2017 09:46:06 UTC

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.

Sphinx:

12-05-2017 10:08:06 UTC

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.

card:

12-05-2017 15:56:31 UTC

[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

Madrid:

12-05-2017 17:39:32 UTC

@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.

card:

12-05-2017 21:30:35 UTC

[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 . . .”

pokes:

13-05-2017 03:20:13 UTC

against 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.

Madrid:

13-05-2017 18:04:55 UTC

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