==============================  CFJ 1312  ==============================

    The final auction price in the most recent Indulgence Auction was 50
    Stems.

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

Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by G.:                           06 Aug 2001 20:25:47 GMT
Assigned to root:                       07 Aug 2001 01:37:57 GMT
Judged FALSE by root:                   12 Aug 2001 00:38:01 GMT
Appealed by Maud:                       12 Aug 2001 02:59:04 GMT
Appealed by Oerjan:                     13 Aug 2001 06:01:02 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Steve, in the latest Indulgence Auction, made several bids "on behalf of"
the Zombie Grech.  Steve was not eligible to bid at the time (not an
Acolyte) but Grech was: the strong implication is that those bids were
bids that would obligate Grech to pay if e were a winner.  It is my belief
that those were successful bids, if so; one of them was for 50 Stems.

Later, Steve send a message stating "I cancel my bid of 50 Stems" without
mentioning Grech.  The question is, does the final cancellation message
successfully refer to Grech's earlier bid and cancel it?  On one hand, the
final message doesn't mention Grech, and as such may not refer to the
previous bid under Rule 1478(d).  On the other hand, the bid, once made,
was arguably one of Steve's actions, not Grech's.

Effect on Auction price:
 (1) If Grech is found to have placed successful bids, but
     Steve's last message left them uncancelled, the final
     price would be 50 Stems (TRUE).
 (2) If Steve successfully cancelled the bid of 50 Stems, the final price
     would be 26 Stems (FALSE).
 (3) If for some reason (I don't expect this), none of Steve's bids
     successfully obligated Grech to pay winning bids, that would mean
     that the success of Elysion's bids on behalf of harlequin, also
     a Zombie, must be examined to determine the final price, but the
     result would still be FALSE.

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

Caller's Evidence:

[The original Auction announcement]

>Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> -I announce an Indulgence Auction for 2 Indulgences beginning with this
>>  message.
>> -I, Herald Goethe, am the Auctioneer.
>> -The items to be auctioned are units of 1 Indulgence each,
>>  therefore there are two such items.
>> -Minimum bid is 1 Stem, all bids in Stems, and public.
>> -Only Acolytes may bid.
>>

[The following messages are a complete set of all bidding messages sent to
the P.F. during the auction.  Headers and nonessential content have been
edited out: a full log is available upon request]:

> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 12:45:48 +1000 (EST)
> From: Steve Gardner <gardner@silas.cc.monash.edu.au>
> To: Agora Nomic Business List <agora-business@agoranomic.org>
>
> Acting as Grech's Executor, I make bids of 50 and 25 Stems on behalf of
> Grech in this Auction.
>
> Steve


> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 17:56:33 -0400
> From: Joshua Boehme <elysion@mindspring.com>
> To: agora-business <agora-business@agoranomic.org>
>
> I cause harlequin to become an Acolyte. I cause harlequin to make a
> bid of 150 Stems and a bid 75 Stems in the current Indulgence Auction.
>
> Elysion


> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 13:55:37 +1000 (EST)
> From: Steve Gardner <gardner@silas.cc.monash.edu.au>
> To: Agora Nomic Business List <agora-business@agoranomic.org>
>
> H. Auctioneer Goethe,
>
> Acting as Grech's Executor, I make a bid of 76 Stems on Grech's behalf
> in the current Indulgence Auction.
>
> Steve


> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 10:07:28 -0400
> From: Joshua Boehme <elysion@mindspring.com>
> To: agora-business <agora-business@agoranomic.org>
>
> I cause harlequin to cancel eir bids of 150 and 75 Stems in the
> Indulgence Auction. I cause harlequin to make 1 bid of 26 Stems and 1
> bid of 13 Stems in the Indulgence Auction.
>
> --
>
> Elysion


> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:04:39 +1000 (EST)
> From: Steve Gardner <gardner@silas.cc.monash.edu.au>
> To: Agora Nomic Business List <agora-business@agoranomic.org>
>
> H. Auctioneer Goethe,
>
> I cancel my bid of 50 Stems in the current Indulgence Auction.
>
> Steve

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

Judge root's Arguments:

The first question we must consider is whether or not an action performed
"on behalf of" an entity is actually performed by the Executor or the
Executee. Rule 1478(a) reads:

      (a) An Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered by the
          Rules to act on behalf of that entity, who is called the
          Executee. There may be more than one such Player. An
          Executor of an Executee may perform on behalf of the
          Executee all such actions as the Rules permit the Executee
          to perform.

The use of the phrases "empowered by the Rules to act" and "An Executor of
an Executee may perform" strongly indicate that the actor is the Executor.
This is further backed by the phrase "on behalf of" itself. The American
Heritage Dictionary defines "on behalf of" as meaning "as the agent of",
and it defines "agent" as meaning "One empowered to act for or represent
another".

As a counter-argument, Rule 1478(e) reads:

      (e) Only persons may perform actions. Non-persons perform
          actions only via the agency of persons, as specified by the
          Rules.

This provides a counter-argument by specifying that non-persons can perform
actions, but in my judgement this is not sufficient on its own, and I would
find that Rule 1478 tells us that it is the Executor who performs the
action, and not the Executee.

However, this is a very dangerous precedent to set.  For example, a Zombie
may be required to perform some action as soon as possible.  The Zombie
cannot, however, perform the action, because this interpretation of 1478
only permits the Zombie's Executor to perform the action and not the Zombie
emself, unless by some miracle the Zombie should become Noisy and perform it.

With this and other dangerous effects in mind, I must determine that an
action performed "on behalf of" an entity is deemed to have been performed
by that entity, despite the unclear wording.

Here some might argue that, by labelling emself as the performer of the
action on behalf of Grech (e.g. "I make a bid", rather than "I cause Grech
to make a bid"), Steve's messages in fact created no successful
bids.  However, given that Rule 1478 explicitly uses the same "on behalf
of" language used by Steve, I can see no real reason not to accept eir bids.

We have established that Steve's bids on behalf of Grech were
successful.  Now we must examine whether the bid e attempted to cancel was
successfully cancelled.  Rule 1478(d) reads:

      (d) A Player acting on behalf of an entity other than emself
          must clearly indicate on whose behalf e is acting. A Player
          who does not clearly indicate that e is acting on behalf of
          some entity other than emself is presumed to be acting on
          eir own behalf.

A couple Players have argued that, because Steve did not mention Grech in
the message in which e attempted to cancel the bid, Steve failed to clearly
indicate that e was cancelling it on Grech's behalf.  However, Goethe
points out that Steve's cancellation attempt clearly refers to the bid e
made on Grech's behalf, since Steve made no bids of eir own.  Thus a clear
indication that the action was to be performed on Grech's behalf was at
least implied.

It might also be noted that nobody seems to have misunderstood Steve's
intent to perform the action on Grech's behalf.  The problem was pointed
out by Goethe in http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-business/m5093.html,
and e wrote there:

    Steve made no bid of 50 Stems in the auction.  Steve caused Grech to bid.
    So I do not know if "my bid", when referred to by Steve, successfully
    cancels Grech's bid.

It is clear to me that Goethe understood that Steve was intending to
perform on Grech's behalf, and that eir uncertainty merely centered around
the validity of the cancellation, and not around what bid Steve was
attempting to cancel.  Since the intended Executee was clear to all
nvolved, I therefore find that clear indication was given.

Therefore, I conclude that Steve successfully cancelled Grech's bid of 50
Stems, and so the Final Auction Price was not 50 Stems, making the
Statement of this CFJ FALSE.

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

Appellant Maud's Arguments:

root wrote:
> This provides a counter-argument by specifying that non-persons can perform
> actions, but in my judgement this is not sufficient on its own, and I would
> find that Rule 1478 tells us that it is the Executor who performs the
> action, and not the Executee.

Zombies aren't non-persons.  Zombies are players, and players are
persons.  (I realize your argument doesn't turn on this point, but
thought I should mention it.)


> Since the intended Executee was clear to all
> involved, I therefore find that clear indication was given.

Rule 1478 does not require that the intended Executee be clear to all
involved.  Rather, it requires that there be a clear indication of the
intended Executee.  I don't see any argument for the claim that the
intended Executee being clear to all involved is sufficient for there
being a clear indication of the intended Executee.

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