From: To: agora-off Subject: OFF: CFJ 1174 OVERTURNED Date: Sunday, December 05, 1999 10:20 PM ====================================================================== CFJ 1174 The PO's issued by Payroll Clerk Lee in the email sent to agora-official time/date stamped Fri, 05 Nov 1999 16:36:15 -0600 were improperly executed, due to the fact that e had already executed PO's for the same purpose in the email sent to agora-discussion time/date stamped Fri, 05 Nov 1999 12:15:27 -0500. ====================================================================== Called by: Wes Judge: Elysion Judgement: TRUE Appeals Justices: Kolja, Lee, t Appeals Decision: OVERTURN Judge selection: Eligible: Elysion, harvel, Kolja, Lee, Michael, Murphy, Palnatoke, Peekee, t Not eligible: Caller: Wes Barred: - Had their turn: Blob, Chuck, Crito Already served: - Defaulted: - By request: - On Hold: elJefe, Steve ====================================================================== History: Called by Wes: 05 Nov 1999 15:32:47 -0800 Assigned to Elysion: 05 Nov 1999 15:45:10 -0800 Judged TRUE by Elysion: 09 Nov 1999 17:31:12 -0500 Judgement Distributed: 10 Nov 1999 14:34:27 -0800 Appealed by Murphy: 23 Nov 1999 02:37:13 -0800 Appealed by Crito: 23 Nov 1999 11:11:11 -0500 Appealed by Elysion: 23 Nov 1999 15:36:19 -0500 Appeal Distributed: 23 Nov 1999 23:39:43 -0800 Appeal Corrected: 25 Nov 1999 02:11:39 -0800 Justice Lee OVERTURNS: 28 Nov 1999 21:11:46 -0600 Justice t OVERTURNS: 02 Dec 1999 00:31:20 +0200 Justice Kolja OVERTURNS: 03 Dec 1999 20:53:24 +0100 Appeal Decision published: As of this message ===================================================================== Caller's Arguments: ====================================================================== Evidence attached by the Caller: From owner-agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Fri Nov 5 09:15:41 1999 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (IDENT:majordomo@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.16]) by jumping-spider.aracnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23975 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:15:39 -0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA11663 for agora-discussion-list; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:06:01 GMT Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA11657 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:05:57 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA07190 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 04:21:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from click.schawk.com(205.184.253.12) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma007188; Sat, 6 Nov 99 04:21:32 +1100 Message-id: Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 12:15:27 -0500 Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Stem Transfer To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au From: lee@schawk.com (_lee _kinkade) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Status: RO dalbertz@rmv.state.ma.us,Internet writes: >H. Payroll Clerk, > >Acting as executor of Schneidster, I hereby cause Schneidster to transfer >125 Stems to the Bank in order to have them converted to P-Notes. > >Acting as myself, I hereby transfer 150 Stems to the Bank in order to >have them converted to +VTs. > >--Crito I order the bank to pay 125 P-Notes to Schneidster. I order the bank to pay 150 +Vts to Crito --- lee If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question. From owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Fri Nov 5 14:39:38 1999 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (IDENT:majordomo@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.16]) by jumping-spider.aracnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27474 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:39:36 -0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA13166 for agora-official-list; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:27:05 GMT Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA13163 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:27:03 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id JAA07750 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 09:42:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from click.schawk.com(205.184.253.12) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma007748; Sat, 6 Nov 99 09:42:19 +1100 Message-id: Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 16:36:15 -0600 Subject: OFF: Re: BUS: Stem Transfer To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au From: lee@schawk.com (_lee _kinkade) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Status: RO dalbertz@rmv.state.ma.us,Internet writes: >H. Payroll Clerk, > >Acting as executor of Schneidster, I hereby cause Schneidster to transfer >125 Stems to the Bank in order to have them converted to P-Notes. > >Acting as myself, I hereby transfer 150 Stems to the Bank in order to >have them converted to +VTs. > >--Crito I order the bank to pay 125 P-Notes to Schneidster. I order the bank to pay 150 +Vts to Crito --- lee If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question. ====================================================================== Judge's Arguments: Though the concept of a valid PO is only briefly treated in the rules, common sense and game custom can be used in many cases. Suppose Lee misordered a PO for 120 +VTs as being for 20 +VTs; intuitively, there is something wrong with this PO. Likewise, if e orders 2 POs for 120 +VTs each, there is also something intuitively wrong with them. Additionally, one could consider that Lee was trying to re-order the same POs e already had created. Since Lee later vacated the second POs, and I cannot see any real reason why they wouldn't be improperly executed, I judge this statement TRUE. ====================================================================== Evidence Attached by Justices: ====================================================================== Justice Lee's Arguments: rule that the judgement of CFJ 1174 be overturned. In light of the relevance of Rules pertaining to Administrative orders that has been realized since this judgement, i see no other way to rule. ======================================================================