From - Mon May 29 11:56:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by hazard.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sj52m9.rfb.37kb01i for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 11:20:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA12070 for agora-official-list; Mon, 29 May 2000 14:59:03 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 OAA12064 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 14:59:00 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id BAA91816 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 01:07:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from hobbiton.org(216.161.239.42) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma091814; Tue, 30 May 00 01:07:00 +1000 Received: (from harvel@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27969 for agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Mon, 29 May 2000 10:07:02 GMT Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 10:07:02 +0000 From: Michael Slone To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Subject: OFF: CFJ 1221 Judged FALSE Message-ID: <20000529100702.B2887@hobbiton.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7i Sender: owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: sj52m9.rfb.37kb01i ============================== CFJ 1221 ============================== There are no Payments Orders in Stems naming Peekee as the Payor[.] ======================================================================== Called by: Peekee Judge: Wes Judgement: FALSE Judge selection: Eligible: Wes Not eligible: Caller: Peekee Barred: - Had eir turn: Chuck, Crito, Elysion, Kelly, Murphy, Palnatoke, Peekee, Sherlock, Steve, Taral, harvel, lee, t Already served: - Defaulted: Harlequin By request: Blob, Michael On Hold: - Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Novalis, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Peekee 24 May 2000 12:35:33 BST Assigned to Wes: 25 May 2000 8:04:33 -0400 Judged FALSE by Wes: 28 May 2000 16:41:45 -0700 Judgement published: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: I hereby Transfer 20 Stems to the bank to satisfy the Payment Order I owe in that Currency. (This will be denoted Transfer 1) Now please note, Rule 1598/8 (Power=1) Transfer Orders A Transfer Order is an Order requiring the Recordkeepor of a Currency to note the transfer of units of that Currency from one entity to another. A valid Transfer Order specifies exactly one source entity, exactly one destination entity, exactly one Currency, and a number of units of that Currency which is a positive multiple of that Currency's MUQ. If a Transfer Order purports to satisfy a particular Payment Order and either that Payment Order does not exist or cannot be satisfied by the Transfer Order, then the Transfer Order is invalid. Other Rules may specify conditions which cause a Transfer Order to be deemed invalid. As far as this Rule goes the Transfer 1 is valid. Rule 1817/0 (Power=1) Recordkeepors' Obedience to Transfer Orders A Recordkeepor is required to abide by all valid Transfer Orders submitted by the Executor of the owner of the units of Currency to be transferred (or, with respect to any entity which lacks an Executor, by any other person empowered by the Rules to execute Transfer Orders on the behalf of such entities), except for those transfers which would result in an entity possessing a negative quantity of Currency. Transfers shall be noted on the Recordkeepor's records in the order in which they are received by the Recordkeepor. Now this Rule does not state that Transfer 1 is invalid rather that the Recordkeepor is not "required" to abide by it. This implies that e may choose to abide by it. Also it should be noted that there is nothing to suggest that the Transfer has not been successfully executed. Rule 1732/3 (Power=1) Satisfaction of Payment Orders A Payment Order is satisfied when a Transfer Order to the payee of that Payment Order for the currency and amount named in that Payment Order is successfully executed, provided that (i) when that Transfer Order was submitted, its submitter clearly indicated that that Transfer Order was being submitted for the purpose of satisfying the Payment Order in question; (ii) the Transfer Order has not satisfied any other Payment Order; (iii) the Payment Order has not already been satisfied or vacated; (iv) the Transfer Order would not have resulted in an entity possessing a negative quantity of Currency. Now I have successfully executed a Transfer Order to the payee of a Payment Order for the correct amount of currency. (It is not clear that this even requires the Transfer to be valid, but I think it is without question that it was executed) It is clear that the first three conditions are met. Condition (iv) is less clear though, If the Recordkeepor does not abide by the above Transfer then I would argue that condition (iv) is met also. If the Recordkeepor for stems decides to abide by the above transfer then I might appear that I would possess a negative quantity of Currency. However I argue that this is not the case, as it is impossible to possess a negative quantity of Currency. Further more even if by some abstract means it was possible to possess a negative quantity of Currency, then it would seem equally possible to make payment Orders of negative amounts. As all the all the Rules rely on phrases such as "a number of units of that Currency" I would always take this to mean a positive amount but if it was possible to own a negative amount of Currency then as the same phrase is used in, Rule 1578/5 (Power=1) Currency Recordkeepors Each Currency shall have associated with it a Player (the Recordkeepor). The Recordkeepor of a Currency is required to maintain a record of the number of units of that Currency possessed by each entity which possesses them, along with recent transfers of that Currency, as detailed elsewhere. It would seem that if it is possible to own a negative number of units of currency the equally Transfers for negative amounts must work also. All of which is strongly against game tradition. However, if it is the case consider the following, I hereby transfer -40 Stems to the Bank (This is a Transfer Order if possessing negative quantities of Currency are allowed. I will denote it Transfer 2.) I hereby Transfer 20 Stems to the bank to satisfy the Payment Order I owe in that Currency. (Let this be denoted Transfer 3.) So if possessing negative amounts of Currency is allowed then Transfer 1 will not have met condition (iv) from Rule 1732 however if the possession of negative amounts of currency is allowed then I argue by the similarity of language used that negative Transfer are also allowed. As such Transfer 2 works and Transfer 3 satisfies the Payment Order. If not then Transfer 2 fails and Transfer 3 is invalid as the Payment Order has been satisfied. Now the only argument I can think of against this is that Transfer 1 was not successfully executed is the Recordkeepor chooses not to abide by it. However, the way the Rules are written suggests that even successfully executed Orders can be invalid, vacated, or otherwise caused to have no effect. So I see no reason why if the Recordkeepor should choose not to abide by my Transfer that this would cause it to be not be successfully executed. ======================================================================== Judge Wes's Arguments: This Statement is really quite trivial. Regardless of whether the Payment Order was satisfied, there is nothing to suggest that it no longer exists. We therefore return a Judgement of FALSE. ======================================================================== Judge Wes's Evidence: ======================================================================== Clerk of the Courts harvel