Index ← 3904 CFJ 3905 3906 → text
===============================  CFJ 3905  ===============================

      With the above-quoted message, Trigon revoked 400 Coins from
      Falsifian.

==========================================================================

Caller:                        Falsifian

Judge:                         Jason
Judgement:                     TRUE

==========================================================================

History:

Called by Falsifian:                              16 May 2021 14:00:56
Assigned to Jason:                                17 May 2021 16:00:51
Judged TRUE by Jason:                             25 May 2021 00:36:54

==========================================================================

[Linked to CFJ 3906]

Caller's Evidence:

["Above-quoted message" from CFJ statement]

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 09:53:28PM +0000, Trigon via agora-official wrote:
> This is the termination message for the First Victory Auction of April 2021.
>
> List of bids (*=withdrawn player):
>
>  amount  bidder
>  ======  ===========
>   100cn  G.
>     1cn  Jason
>   120cn  Jason
>   180cn  Falsifian
>   221cn  G.
>   222cn  ATMunn*
>   230cn  Jason
>   300cn  Falsifian
>   331cn  G.
>   400cn  Falsifian
>
> LOT 1:   ONE NEW VICTORY CARD
> AWARDEE: Falsifian
>
> I revoke 400 coins from Falsifian and create one victory card in eir
> possession.
>
> (No Faking: That may not have worked)
>
> -- 
> Trigon


1. Here's the message Trigon used to initate the auction, sent 2021-04-28:

> 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:
>
> 

I've copied the message from that link to the bottom of this email.


2. Trigon's enactment of the regulations, dated 2021-05-05:

> On 4/27/21 1:06 AM, Trigon via agora-official wrote:
>> I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to amend the following auction
>> regulations so that they read as follows.
>
> Having recieved support from Jason and ATMunn and no objections, I do so.



Arguments for the second CFJ:

    If the first CFJ is TRUE, I see no reason the second shouldn't be
    TRUE too. The auction rules make it clear that the auctioneer can
    do this if the auction method allows it, and the auction method is
    clear.

    If the first CFJ is FALSE because the auction regulation can't
    empower Trigon to revoke assets, then I think it comes down to the
    interpretation of the following sentence from the draft regulation:

       In this message, the auctioneer CAN and SHALL destroy the amount
       to be paid from the inventory each awardee and transfer to that
       player (or create in eir possession if the item is new) the set
       of assets associated with the lot e won.

    The form is: "the auctioneer CAN and SHALL do A and B". But if
    we've established they can't do A, then they can't do A and B.

    This is a bit ambiguous. Maybe the sentence has no effect since the
    regulation is trying to empower the auctioneer to do something (A
    and B together) that they can't. Or maybe it should be read as
    authorizing the auctioneer to do A and also B.

    However, even under the second interpretation, I still think it
    would be FALSE, because R2545 requires the auction method to be
    "generally recognizable ... as a fair, equitable, and timely
    [method]". Winning just by being the last person to state a bigger
    meaningless number than the last person, when a casual reading of
    the the regulations wouldn't make it clear that's the goal, doesn't
    seem fair.


Arguments for FALSE for the first CFJ:

Note that the auction began before the regulations were amended. This
may affect interpretation of the clause: "For the purposes of
interpreting auction definitions, such methods are treated as if they
are defined in this rule.", which seems to refer specifically to
auction regulations.

Even if we do consider the new regulation text to have been in force, I
still think it should be FALSE. I think the following quotes from the
recent thread "[Treasuror] [Auction Regulations Proto] Rough Draft for
Redesign" summarise my position (I also included Trigon's reply).

Falsifian:

> Can an auction regulation give the auctioneer the power to destroy
> assets, as this text purports to do?
>
> As far as I can tell the only power this regulation has is that it adds
> some definitions. R2565 grants the auctioneer the power to "transfer
> said items as necessary..." but I think that's referring to the goods
> being auctioned off

Trigon:

> It is quite possible that this does not work; however, if it does the best
> rebuttal is found in R2545¶4:
>
>>       The Treasuror is the promulgator for regulations that define
>>       specific auction methods (i.e. "the default auction method") and
>>       SHOULD do in order to aid trade and commerce.  *For the purposes of
>>       interpreting auction definitions, such methods are treated as if
>>       they are defined in this rule.*
>
> As the section on distribution authorizes the auctioneer to destroy the assets
> and it is considered part of Rule 2545.

Falsifian:

> That's only for the purposes of interpreting the auction definitions,
> though. To me, that just means: if you aren't sure what the auction
> regulations mean, imagine the text placed in R2545, and that will give
> you tho correct interpretation. But this isn't a question of what the
> auction regulations mean --- that's clear enough in this case. So I'm
> not sure the "For the purposes of interpreting..." clause is relevant.



Here is the message from
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-April/014857.html
which Trigon linked to:

> I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to amend the following auction
> regulations so that they read as follows.
>
> I am willing to stop this intent in case of a breaking bug or issue.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Regulation AM0/1
> Generalized Auction
>
>        Generalized auctions exist to give context to the form of other
>        types of auctions. They CANNOT be held directly. Other auction
>        methods that use this type of auction as a starting point can
>        override attributes of generalized auctions except when it is
>        explicitly stated that that attribute is not able to be
>        overridden.
>
>        INITIATION: When a person CAN begin an auction by this or any
>        derivative method, e CAN only do so by specifying the type of
>        auction method to be held, a list of lots to be auctioned off, and
>        the currency for the auction in a public message (henceforth the
>        "initiation message"). The bidding period starts at this point.
>
>        BIDDING: Players CAN place a bid on an auction in its bidding
>        period by creating a public message (henceforth a "bid message")
>        specifying a number of the auction's currency as eir bid not equal
>        to the bid of another player. Players CAN withdraw from an open
>        auction by announcement.
>
>        TERMINATION: The bidding period ends four days after the final
>        instance of any of the following events' occurance:
>          * the auction begins
>          * a bid is placed
>          * a player withdraws from the auction
>
>        RETRIEVAL: When the bidding period ends, the retrieval period
>        begins. During the retrieval period, bidders will be allowed to
>        retrieve the assets required to pay for their bid. The retrieval
>        period lasts three days. Failing to have the requisite assets when
>        the retrieval period for an auction ends constitutes the Class 1
>        Crime of Underfundedness.
>
>        AWARDING: For each auction, there are a number of awardees equal
>        to the number of lots. The Nth lot of an auction goes to the Nth
>        awardee of that auction. If the identity of an awardee is
>        undecidable, then that lot cannot be given away. Auction methods
>        specify how awardees are picked for auctions using that method.
>
>        PAYMENT AMOUNT: The amount that an awardee in an auction is
>        required to pay for eir lot is, unless otherwise specified,
>        the amount of the auction's curency specified in eir highest bid
>        on that auction.
>
>        FUNDED PLAYERS: Derivative auction methods should ensure that only
>        players who, at the end of an auction's retrieval period, have at
>        least as much of that auction's currency as the amount that e is
>        required to pay in that auction (hereafter "funded players") can
>        be selected as awardees for auctions using that auction method.
>
>        DISTRIBUTION: The auctioneer for an auction CAN and SHALL, within
>        seven days of the ending of that auction's retrieval period,
>        create a public message (henceforth the "distribution message")
>        that contains a full history of bids on the auction and
>        withdrawals from the auction. It must also clearly indicate each
>        awardee and the lot e recieves. In this message, the auctioneer
>        CAN and SHALL destroy the amount to be paid from the inventory
>        each awardee and transfer to that player (or create in eir
>        possession if the item is new) the set of assets associated with
>        the lot e won. Failing to publish a distribution message
>        constitutes the Class 3 Crime of Auction Abandonment.
>
>        ACTIVE BIDS: The set of active bids for an auction is the set of
>        all funded, non-withdrawn players' highest bids on that auction.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Regulation AM1/0
> Forward Auctions
>
>        Forward auctions function like generalized auctions except:
>
>        * The Nth awardee for a forward auction is the player who
>          submitted the Nth-highest active bid on that auction.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Regulation AM2/0
> Sealed-bid Auctions
>
>        Sealed-bid auctions function like generalized auctions except:
>
>        * Players can only submit bids on a sealed-bid auction if they do
>          not have a bid in that auction.
>        * Bids must be initially hidden so that it is impossible to tell
>          its value but that it is verifiable that the amount bid was
>          decided before the bid was placed. Anything that claims to be a
>          bid and fits these conditions is considered a bid.
>        * The retrieval period for a sealed-bid auction lasts for seven
>          days.
>        * Each player SHALL reveal eir bid amount on a sealed-bid auction
>          while the auction is in its retrieval period. Failing to do so
>          is the Class 2 Crime of Potential Faking.
>        * The termination message need not indicate any bids for which the
>          amount bid is not known.
>        * The Nth awardee of a sealed-bid auction is the player whose bid
>          is the Nth-highest active bid on that auction.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Regulation AM3/0
> Second-price Auctions
>
>        Second-price auctions function like forward auctions except:
>
>        * The amount to be paid by the Nth awardee is the amount of the
>          auction's currency specified by the (N-1)th highest active bid
>          on that auction or the lowest active bid if such a value does
>          not exist.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Regulation AM4/0
> Nonwinning-price Auctions
>
>        Nonwinning-price auctions function like forward auctions except:
>
>        * The amount to by paid by all awardees is the amount of the
>          auction's currency specified by the highest active bid on that
>          auction not placed by an awardee or the lowest active bid if
>          such a value does not exist.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Regulation AM5/0
> Selective-bid Auctions
>
>        Selective-bit auctions function like generalized auctions except:
>
>        * Bidding messages on a selective-bid auction must also specify a
>          lot that is preferred.
>        * The Nth awardee of a selective-bid auction is the player who
>          placed the highest active bid whose preferred bid is the Nth
>          lot.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> Trigon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gratuitous Arguments by Trigon:

On 5/16/21 2:00 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
> I call two CFJs, and suggest that they be linked:
>
> CFJ: With the above-quoted message, Trigon revoked 400 Coins from
> Falsifian.
>
> CFJ: With the above-quoted message, Trigon created one Victory Card in
> Falsifian's possession.
>
> [snip]
>
> Arguments for the second CFJ:
>
>      If the first CFJ is TRUE, I see no reason the second shouldn't be
>      TRUE too. The auction rules make it clear that the auctioneer can
>      do this if the auction method allows it, and the auction method is
>      clear.
>
>      If the first CFJ is FALSE because the auction regulation can't
>      empower Trigon to revoke assets, then I think it comes down to the
>      interpretation of the following sentence from the draft regulation:
>
>         In this message, the auctioneer CAN and SHALL destroy the amount
>         to be paid from the inventory each awardee and transfer to that
>         player (or create in eir possession if the item is new) the set
>         of assets associated with the lot e won.
>
>      The form is: "the auctioneer CAN and SHALL do A and B". But if
>      we've established they can't do A, then they can't do A and B.
>
>      This is a bit ambiguous. Maybe the sentence has no effect since the
>      regulation is trying to empower the auctioneer to do something (A
>      and B together) that they can't. Or maybe it should be read as
>      authorizing the auctioneer to do A and also B.
>
>      However, even under the second interpretation, I still think it
>      would be FALSE, because R2545 requires the auction method to be
>      "generally recognizable ... as a fair, equitable, and timely
>      [method]". Winning just by being the last person to state a bigger
>      meaningless number than the last person, when a casual reading of
>      the the regulations wouldn't make it clear that's the goal, doesn't
>      seem fair.
>

Gratuitous arguments: the definition of an auction is "a way for 
entities to give away specified assets (items), grouped into lots, in 
exchange for a currency" (Rule 2545/3 ¶1). My inclination here is to say 
that, should the first CFJ about whether a lot was transferred be judged 
FALSE, what I have done here fails to meet the criteria to be considered 
an auction as it is not a way to exchange currency for lots, implying a 
judgement of FALSE.

> Arguments for FALSE for the first CFJ:
>
> Note that the auction began before the regulations were amended. This
> may affect interpretation of the clause: "For the purposes of
> interpreting auction definitions, such methods are treated as if they
> are defined in this rule.", which seems to refer specifically to
> auction regulations.
>
> Even if we do consider the new regulation text to have been in force, I
> still think it should be FALSE. I think the following quotes from the
> recent thread "[Treasuror] [Auction Regulations Proto] Rough Draft for
> Redesign" summarise my position (I also included Trigon's reply).
>

Gratuitous arguments: I have picked through the wording of Rule 2545/3 
and I have more evidence now than what was quoted, and it lies in Rule 
2545/3 ¶2, which I present, somewhat abbreviated.

       When the rules authorize a person (the auctioneer) to conduct an
       auction, e CAN do so by any wholly public method that ... under
       common definitions and terms used in auctions, as a fair,
       equitable, and timely means of ... enabling the appropriate
       exchange of goods.

This is where I believe my logic falls apart, but I would really like my 
auctions to work, so attempt to bear with me.

When the rules authorize a person to conduct an auction, we know by ¶1 
that that authorizes em to oversee a means of exchanging currency for 
lots. This implies that any method that the auctioneer chooses that 
allows an equitable auction process has authorization to facilitate such 
a transfer by extension of the authorization to perform the auction at 
all. Otherwise it would not be an auction by ¶1.

On the other hand, perhaps similar logic could lead one to conclude that 
the rules never authorize any player to begin an auction under auction 
regulations that fail to allow a method to transfer or destroy coins 
from awardees, in which case what I just have done was never was an 
auction in the first place.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2545/3 (Power=2)
Auctions

       An auction is a way for entities to give away specified assets
       (items), grouped into lots, in exchange for a currency. A lot is a
       non-empty list of items to be transferred to a single recipient
       (an auction winner).

       When the rules authorize a person (the auctioneer) to conduct an
       auction, e CAN do so by any wholly public method that would be
       generally recognizable, as specified by the auctioneer at the
       start of the auction, and under common definitions and terms used
       in auctions, as a fair, equitable, and timely means of determining
       the auction winners from among the current players, and enabling
       the appropriate exchange of goods.

       The rule that authorizes the auction further authorizes the
       auctioneer or auction winners to transfer said items as necessary
       to conduct the auction in a manner consistent with the auction
       method. If the authorization is to auction "new" items, it further
       authorizes the creation of said items as per the chosen method.

       The Treasuror is the promulgator for regulations that define
       specific auction methods (i.e. "the default auction method") and
       SHOULD do in order to aid trade and commerce.  For the purposes of
       interpreting auction definitions, such methods are treated as if
       they are defined in this rule. To further aid trade and commerce,
       auction methods should be interpreted in the name of fairness with
       deference to the method's clear intent, if intent can be
       reasonably inferred.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Jason's Arguments:

Rule 2545 states that "When the rules authorize a person (the
auctioneer) to conduct an auction, e CAN do so by any wholly public
method [...]". This clause is separate from the clause that authorizes
the transfer or creation of the auctioned items, so it can provide more
authorization than that clause. I find that this clause is extremely
broad. Based on its plain text, it enables any auction method that is
"wholly public", "generally recognizable", "fair", "equitable", and
"timely", and that "determin[es] the auction winners from among the
current players" and "enable[s] the appropriate exchange of goods". I
find that this enabling recurses into the actions permitted by the
auction method, as Rule 2545 enables the auctioneer to "conduct an
auction", not just to ultimately transfer the goods. In this case,
conducting an auction, as defined by the auction method, necessitates
revoking coins and creating a new Victory Card, so Rule 2545 implicitly
authorizes those auctions.

In order to determine whether this clause applies, however, it must be
determined whether the method of the purported Victory Auction satisfies
the requirements of an auction:
* Wholly public: Clearly yes.
* Generally recognizable: Clearly yes.
* Fair and equitable: I believe yes, and the fact that the auction
method was enshrined into regulation indicates that the populace as a
whole believes so, too.
* Timely: I believe it's timely enough, so yes.
* Determining the auction winners from among the current players:
Clearly yes.
* Enabling the appropriate exchange of goods: Yes, but this requires
explanation.

AM0/2 says the following about the distribution message:
{
                                      In this message, the auctioneer
      CAN and SHALL destroy the amount to be paid from the inventory
      each awardee and transfer to that player (or create in eir
      possession if the item is new) the set of assets associated with
      the lot e won.
}

This does not provide an explicit method to perform the destruction and
transfer. Based on Rule 2545's request that "auction methods should be
interpreted in the name of fairness with deference to the method's clear
intent, if intent can be reasonably inferred.", I find that the auction
method permits ISID transference and destruction, despite the fact that
rule text would not allow it under Rule 2125, as the intent is clearly
to allow an ISID transfer. Though the caller raises the question of
whether the auction method was defined by auction regulation at the time
of the resolution of the auction. I find that whether it is or not is
irrelevant. Even if the auction method was to be interpreted as rules
text, the clause that authorizes interpretation using "clear intent"
appears later and thus takes precedence.

The Victory Auction satisfies the requirements of an auction, and the
second paragraph of Rule 2545 authorizes the destruction of the bids and
creation of a new Victory Card.

CFJ 3905 judged TRUE.
CFJ 3906 judged TRUE.

[0]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-May/014878.html

==========================================================================