Nomic 5 Proposal 312: Testicle Trading

Moderators: Crunkus, connect4

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 312: Testicle Trading

Postby Justini12 » 03 Apr 2014, 02:43

By rule 310, the stock and the number of points must both have their own line. Therefore the bid was invalid.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
User avatar
Justini12
 
Posts: 58
Joined: 24 Jan 2013, 02:36
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (932)
All-game rating: (859)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 312: Testicle Trading

Postby Crunkus » 03 Apr 2014, 02:51

Hmm. Well crafted legislation.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 312: Testicle Trading

Postby Justini12 » 03 Apr 2014, 05:22

Also, that would mean the Crunkus has the stocks, however, he is the SEC, so the stocks will be up for sale AGAIN at the end of this voting phase. This time, I'll be making sure no one ALMOST wins that game again.
Or as the case may be, actually win the game by use of that trick.
User avatar
Justini12
 
Posts: 58
Joined: 24 Jan 2013, 02:36
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (932)
All-game rating: (859)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 312: Testicle Trading

Postby connect4 » 03 Apr 2014, 05:35

jqz1212jc wrote:By rule 310, the stock and the number of points must both have their own line. Therefore the bid was invalid.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


Depends on your interpretation. The sentence is written "Each stock and number of points must be bold, on its own line, and reasonably legible."

If you interpret it as "Each (stock and number of points) must be bold, on its own line, and reasonably legible.", referring to each individual bid, then dipsy did it properly.
If you interpret it as each separate part of the bid must be on its own line, then this could be completely fuzzy. If I bid

Apple
Microsoft


10 points
-500 points


To which one do I refer? I've met the requirements as you list (no where does it say that it must be consecutive), so I can then argue later that either one works.

The only way to unambiguously interpret bids is to read that sentence with points and stock on the same line. Of course, I'm technically not currently active, but so far that's my read.
User avatar
connect4
 
Posts: 3610
Joined: 15 Nov 2008, 23:56
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1042)
All-game rating: (1012)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 312: Testicle Trading

Postby Justini12 » 03 Apr 2014, 05:42

Your example would classify as reasonably illegible. Anyway, I would interpret it as you are bidding 10 points for Microsoft and want to put Apple in bold for some reason. Also, your first example (with brackets) isn't what the rules state. The second example is what the rules state. Therefore, the bid was invalid, the game is not over, and as soon as it's my turn I will propose an amendment to something to fix it.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
User avatar
Justini12
 
Posts: 58
Joined: 24 Jan 2013, 02:36
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (932)
All-game rating: (859)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 312: Testicle Trading

Postby connect4 » 03 Apr 2014, 05:48

Then I call for judgement. Judge: Was the bid valid, and is the game thus over?
User avatar
connect4
 
Posts: 3610
Joined: 15 Nov 2008, 23:56
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1042)
All-game rating: (1012)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 312: Testicle Trading

Postby connect4 » 03 Apr 2014, 05:49

And in case one would argue that I can't call for judgement:

NAY

I call for judgement now, same question as above. My arguments can be found in the thread above.
User avatar
connect4
 
Posts: 3610
Joined: 15 Nov 2008, 23:56
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1042)
All-game rating: (1012)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 312: Testicle Trading

Postby Justini12 » 03 Apr 2014, 05:53

I object as this causes a conflict of interest. Super_dipsy would be the judge of herself winning or not. I therefore propose that super_dipsy defer judgement to the next player.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
User avatar
Justini12
 
Posts: 58
Joined: 24 Jan 2013, 02:36
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (932)
All-game rating: (859)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 312: Testicle Trading

Postby super_dipsy » 03 Apr 2014, 07:04

I'm very sorry guys. I have been quiet up to now because I was trying to decide what was best to do. I made the game-winning post in a fit of pique because I was annoyed with Ugluk over his title for the thread which he has now changed. But once I had cooled off I could not go back and undo what I posted.I do not want to end the game because a lot of people have invested a lot of time and energy creating a really fun game with lots of potential, and I regret taking such an underhand route. I then kept quiet because I was hoping no-one would notice. However I now feel immensely better because I see someone mentioned that the game does not have to stop but can continue! Excellent!!

As for the judgement called
jqz1212jc wrote:I object as this causes a conflict of interest. Super_dipsy would be the judge of herself winning or not. I therefore propose that super_dipsy defer judgement to the next player.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


I don't really see I have any need to defer judgement because in this case I think the conclusion is 100% clear. But I also would point out the rules have a specific mechanism to cope with any doubts about my impartiality by allowing players to overturn the ruling. So I will rule, but feel free to overturn it if you feel it is wrong.

The legislation wording was imprecise which is what allowed me to post a negative number. As C4 correctly pointed out it is also possible to interpret it in multiple ways although I would point out that I think my interpretation was the only correct one as I will come to later. But since the format I used was valid as one interpretation of the slack wording, it follows the rules. If C4 had posted in the format he laid out as an alternative he could have also claimed to be using a valid interpretation, although I am not sure I would agree :)

I think if you look at the preceding text the validity of the different interpretations becomes clearer.

jqz1212jc wrote:By rule 310, the stock and the number of points must both have their own line. Therefore the bid was invalid.

Rule 310 wrote:.. each player may post in thread as many stocks as he chooses and a number of points next to each stock. Each stock and number of points must be bold, on its own line, and reasonably legible. Players may not post any stock twice with a number of points next to it in bold on its own line.


While I agree that it is possible to interpret the 'each' as either referring to each stock and each number of points separately or jointly, it is hard to argue the validity of 'next to' meaning anything other than on the same line. Putting the two lines together, it is hard to see any more valid interpetation than that the each refers to the stock and number of points combination. I would actually have challenged someone posting with the separate line interpretation based on the fact that I don't think you can say 'next to' can include 'on the next line'.

So I rule the bid is valid, and I am a winner, but this does not have to stop the game (hooray!). Of course, if anyone disagrees then feel free to overrule me and the decision will pass to the previous judge.
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12068
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 931
Timezone: GMT

Re: Nomic 5 Proposal 312: Testicle Trading

Postby super_dipsy » 03 Apr 2014, 07:06

Assuming my ruling is not overturned, then if there is any doubt about whether the game continues I forfeit the game as per Rule 113. This means that since I am not in the game I can't stop the game by being the winner and you can all continue to play which is what I think is the best outcome.
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12068
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 931
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Nomic 5 (finished)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron