========================================================================== CFJ 1119 Kolja did not have effective control of more than three Voting Tokens at the time Proposals 3829-3830 were distributed, because he had granted Power of Attorney to Steve. ========================================================================== Called by: Steve Judge: Kolja A. Judgement: TRUE Judgement Appealed Appeals Board: Crito (J), Murphy (S), Michael (pro-CotC) Decision of Justices: Justiciar Crito: OVERTURN/FALSE Speaker Murphy: OVERTURN/FALSE pro-CotC Michael: OVERTURN/FALSE Decision of Board: OVERTURN/FALSE Judge selection: Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, Kolja A., Michael, Morendil Not eligible: Caller: Steve Barred: Blob Had their turn: Ørjan, Macross, Blob, General Chaos, Murphy, Peekee, Vlad Already served: - Defaulted: - By request: - On Hold: Ørjan, lee Justice selection (random replacement of CotC Steve, cf R911/8): Eligible: Chuck, elJefe, General Chaos, Macross, Michael, Morendil, Peekee, Vlad Not eligible: Caller: Steve Barred: Blob Already served: Kolja A. Orig. ineligible: Ørjan On Board: Crito, Murphy ========================================================================== History: Called by Steve: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 20:49:50 +1100 Assigned to Kolja A.: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:13:48 +1100 Judged TRUE by Steve (acting as Kolja's Executor): Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:35:28 +1100 Appealed by Michael: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:54:54 +0000 Appealed by Chuck: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 06:38:24 -0600 Appealed by Vlad: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:46:39 -0600 Judgement published: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:56:29 +1100 Assigned to Board of Appeals: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:56:29 +1100 Justiciar Crito Judges OVERTURN/FALSE: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:27:46 -0500 pro-CotC Michael Judges OVERTURN/FALSE: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:11:25 +0000 Speaker Murphy Judges OVERTURN/FALSE: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 01:16:41 -0800 Decision of Board published: as of this message ========================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Kolja granted me his Power of Attorney commencing on 01 Feb 1999 00:00 GMT, about five and a half hours before Proposals 3829-3830 were distributed (at Mon, 01 Feb 1999 00:36:00 -0500, according to the Assessor's Report of the results). Now, R1842 states that: When the Holder is granted Power of Attorney for the Grantor, that means that the Holder becomes the sole Executor for the Grantor for as long as e has that Power of Attorney. So while I hold Kolja's Power of Attorney, I am Kolja's sole Executor. In particular, this means that Kolja is not his own Executor, and is therefore incapable of executing Transfer Orders, at least of a kind which the Recordkeepor is required to record (see R1817). According to the definition of "effective control of an asset" in R1873, Effective control of an asset (e.g., a unit of Currency) is the ability to dispose of that asset as one wishes. But Kolja manifestly cannot dispose of his assets as he wishes while I hold his Power of Attorney, for he cannot dispose of his assets at all; only I can do so, as his sole Executor. Hence Kolja did not have effective control of any assets whatsoever when Proposals 3829-3830 were distributed, and could not have incurred a Duty to Vote on those Proposals. ========================================================================== Judge's Arguments: Acting as Kolja's Executor, I hereby deliver the following Judgement: I accept the Caller's arguments and deliver a Judgement of TRUE. ========================================================================== Justiciar Crito's Arguments: I hereby vote to overturn the above judgement and return a judgement of FALSE for CFJ 1119. At first blush, the original judgement seems reasonable, since granting PoA to another Player does indeed technically deprive the grantor of the ability to make Transfer Orders for the duration of the granting. However, because the PoA Rules allow the grantor to revoke PoA at any time, without warning or restriction, there is never a time during the the grantor is actually unable to make use of eir assets, if e so desires. It is this judges opinion that such an ability amounts to continuous "effective control" over the assets in question. This means that Kolja did indeed incur a Duty to Vote on Proposals 3829-3830 and the original penalty assessment was valid. Since these penalties were vacated by the original Judge, it appears to be my duty as Justiciar and Lead Justice for the Appeal to issue Appellate Orders reinstating these penalties, as long as one or both of my fellow appellate justices concur with this finding and certify that these orders should be issued. --Justiciar Crito ========================================================================== pro-CotC Michael's Arguments: I hereby move to OVERTURN the judgement and replace it with one of FALSE. Andre has pointed that regardless of whether or not Kolja granted Power of Attorney to Steve, he still had the ability to at any time retract this grant and then assume complete control of his assets. The issue then becomes one of deciding whether or not this constitutes "effective control". As many have pointed out, Kolja certainly did not have exclusive control of his assets as Steve could have also spent his currencies while he had PoA for Kolja. Nonetheless, the rule in question only asks us to decide whether or not Kolja A. had effective control of his assets. This Justice believes that he did. Michael. ========================================================================== Justice Murphy's Arguments: I find that the original Judgement is incorrect, and move to reverse it. Even while Power of Attorney is in effect, Kolja is still able to act as emself, because e *is* emself; e does not need the power of Executorship to do so. Kolja is able to spend eir Currency, or lock it up in a Contest which prohibits Steve from doing anything to it on behalf of Kolja. It is my opinion that this imposes no significant penalty. It is also my opinion that Steve's ability to beat Kolja to the punch does not deny Kolja effective control; effective control need not be exclusive. ==========================================================================