From - Wed May 31 21:30:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by fb04.eng00.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sjbcb7.c8u.37kbi5a for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 20:42:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA31930 for agora-official-list; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:26:03 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 AAA31924 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:26:00 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id KAA02610 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:34:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from msuacad.morehead-st.edu(147.133.1.1) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma002608; Thu, 1 Jun 00 10:34:18 +1000 Received: (from mpslon01@localhost) by msuacad.morehead-st.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e510Vfh15442 for agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Wed, 31 May 2000 20:31:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Slone Message-Id: <200006010031.e510Vfh15442@msuacad.morehead-st.edu> Subject: OFF: CFJ 1222 Judged FALSE To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-official) Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 20:31:40 EDT X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] 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: sjbcb7.c8u.37kbi5a ============================== CFJ 1222 ============================== The message sent to the Business List by Elysion containing the text 'The Bank pays all its outstanding IAT POs' did not cause any Transfer Orders to be exectuted. ======================================================================== Called by: Kelly Judge: Crito Judgement: FALSE Judge selection: Eligible: Chuck, Crito, Peekee, Sherlock, Steve, Taral, Wes, harvel, lee, t Not eligible: Caller: Kelly Barred: Elysion Had eir turn: Murphy, Palnatoke Already served: - Defaulted: Harlequin By request: Blob, Michael On Hold: - Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Novalis, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Kelly 24 May 2000 22:12:56 -0500 Assigned to Crito: 25 May 2000 8:23:04 -0400 Judged FALSE by Crito: 31 May 2000 14:33:39 -0400 Judgement published: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: As argument I ask that the Judge consider the recent extensive debate on what constitutes a message sufficient to convey the information required to specify things like Votes, much of which will transfer to the execution of Transfer Orders. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: ======================================================================== Judge Crito's Arguments: First of all, I can dismiss the trivial case that there were no outstanding IAT PO's at the time of this message, since Elysion has provided me evidence that there was at least one. This brings us to the definition of a TO: 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. At first glance, this seems to indicate that a TO message must explicitly contain all of these elements. However, the word "specify" leaves room for interpretation. Does "specify" mean explicitly stated or does an indirect reference qualify as a specification? We have much game custom to support the interpretation allowing indirect specification. "I pay ..." has become a well entrenched synonym for "I execute a Transfer Order ...". In particular, references to specific Payment Orders in this context have consistently been taken to mean a Transfer Order that satisfies the specified Payment Order. In other words, because a Payment Order itself specifies a source, destination and number of units in a specific Currency, any reference to that Payment Order is considered a specification of those things required by R1598. This is unproblematic in the following situations: 1. Player presents a quote of an issued PO and states "I pay this". The message itself contains the required information (in the quote) and might even be viewed as a direct specification. 2. Player states "I pay PO X", where X is an accepted, unambiguous reference to a specific PO. Here the message does not explicitly contain the required information, but the specification of a particular PO which does specify it can reasonably be interpreted as having satisfied R1598. This brings us to the case at hand. Does a statement of the form "The Bank pays all outstanding POs" also satisfy R1598? First, does it succeed in making unambiguous references to specific POs? Well, I would have to say "yes". "All outstanding POs" is a well-defined set of specific POs. There is no ambiguity here. The fact that the Player making the statement may not have knowledge of the members of this set is irrelevant to whether or not e has specified the set. E has referred to a specific, unambiguous set of POs, each member of which speficies exactly the information required by R1598. If we are to allow cases 1 and 2 above, then, absent legislation specifically preventing it, we must also allow the case in question. IMO, game custom strongly supports the acceptance of 1 and 2, therefore I am inclined to judge the CFJ FALSE. ======================================================================== Judge Crito's Evidence: ======================================================================== Clerk of the Courts harvel -- Michael Slone