From - Sat Jun 24 13:15:36 2000 Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by pilot021.cl.msu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA74310 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:02:20 -0400 Received: from fb04.eng00.mindspring.net (fb04.eng00.mindspring.net [207.69.200.170]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA12108 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:02:20 -0400 (EDT) X-MindSpring-Loop: elysion@mindspring.com Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by fb04.eng00.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sl6raf.dac.37kbi5a for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:59:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA30517 for agora-official-list; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:44:23 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 NAA30514 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:44:21 GMT From: magika@aracnet.com Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id XAA79240 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:54:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail2.aracnet.com(216.99.193.35) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma079238; Fri, 23 Jun 00 23:54:36 +1000 Received: from shell1.aracnet.com (shell1.aracnet.com [216.99.193.21]) by mail2.aracnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA28901 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:53:35 -0700 Received: by shell1.aracnet.com (8.9.3) id GAA15137; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:53:31 -0700 Message-Id: <200006231353.GAA15137@shell1.aracnet.com> Subject: OFF: CFJ 1224 OVERTURNED (with Arguments) To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-off) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:53:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Status: RO X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: 3954c93a0000001e ============================== CFJ 1224 ============================== Elysions's message of 11 April 2000, reading in part, 'The Bank pays all its outstanding IAT POs (50 to Michael and 75 to Chuck)', did not have the effect of executing a Transfer Order which would satisfy the Payment Order executed by lee in eir message dated 11 March 2000, reading in part, 'I order the Bank to pay Murphy 130 IATs.' ======================================================================== Called by: Kelly Judge: Chuck Judgement: TRUE Justices: Wes (C), Taral (J), lee (S) Appeals Ruling: OVERTURN to FALSE Judge selection: Eligible: Chuck, Crito, Elysion, Peekee, Steve, Taral, Wes, harvel, lee Not eligible: Caller: Kelly Barred: - Had eir turn: Kelly, Murphy, Palnatoke, t Already served: Sherlock Defaulted: Harlequin, Sherlock By request: Blob, Michael On Hold: - Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Novalis, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Kelly 26 May 2000 16:04:33 -0500 Assigned to Sherlock: 29 May 2000 10:06:10 +0000 Sherlock defaulted: 08 Jun 2000 14:13:54 -0400 Reassigned to Chuck: 09 Jun 2000 8:52:44 -0400 Judged by Chuck: 15 Jun 2000 11:14:15 -0500 Appealed by Wes: 15 Jun 2000 11:03:41 -0700 Appealed by Crito: 15 Jun 2000 14:06:44 -0400A Appealed by Steve: 16 Jun 2000 10:10:34 +1000 Judgement Distributed: 18 Jun 2000 16:35:17 -0700 Appeal assigned: 18 Jun 2000 16:35:17 -0700 Justice's Arguments posted: 22 Jun 2000 21:49:26 -070 Justice Wes OVERTURNS: 22 Jun 2000 22:02:11 -0700 Justice Taral OVERTURNS: 23 Jun 2000 00:03:43 -0500 Justice lee OVERTURNS: 23 Jun 2000 07:56:48 -0500 Appeals decision distributed: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Payroll Clerk lee's message was delayed two and a half months by a malfunction in the mail server which services one of the Public Fora. As a result, this message, while sent on March 11, was not generally received by the Players until May 23. Elysion, however, has claimed that eir message, dated April 11, a month and a half before any Player other than lee was aware of this Order, had the effect of executing a Transfer Order for a Payment Order of which e had no knowledge. If Elsyion is correct, e is claiming to have executed a Transfer Order without knowing that e had done so, and in fact did not realize that e had done so until some time after May 23, when lee's Payment Order was distributed to the Players. Elysion's message parenthetically listed the POs to be paid; there is no mention of lee's PO to be paid to Murphy. It seems clear that Elysion had no intention that eir message was intended to satisfy this wayward Payment Order. It stretches credibility to the extreme to believe that this constitutes a Transfer Order as required by Rule 1598. A Transfer Order must specify a source entity, a destination entity, a Currency, and some number of units. While it has been held that these can be specified implicitly, this situation takes "implicitly" too far. At the time this message was sent, the only person who was even possibly aware that this Order existed was lee, and I suspect that even lee had forgotten about it. If this message specifies a Transfer Order with deferred specification, then it should also be legal for a Player to state "I execute a Transfer Order, for an amount of Currency to be named later, to an entity to be named later" and then name the amount and payee at some future time. I do not think that anyone will accept this as a valid specification of a Transfer Order -- and neither should we accept Elysion's specification as a valid specification of a Transfer Order, either. I request that this CFJ be known as the "Case of the Wayward Payment Order". ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: ======================================================================== Judge's Arguments: In discussions on this issue, both Kelly and Elysion make the assumption that the Payment Order in question cam into existence when it was sent. However, this assumption is worth questioning. Rule 1793 states, "An Order is a command, executed by a Player..." That is, a collection of text which could potentially be an Order must be "executed" for it to actually be an Order. A command which is not executed is not an Order. What does it mean for a command to be executed? The term is not defined in the Rules. Where there is a significant delay between the time the command is sent, and the time when it is received, at which time was the command executed? The Rules provide no guidance on this issue, nor does the m-w.com definition of "execute," which defines it as "to carry out fully : put completely into effect." Even with this definition of "execute", a case for either interpretation could be made. I find that it is not in the best interests of the game to require a Player to abide by a command which e has not received. A command is not "executed" if it has not been received by the Player required to abide by it. Thus, the command for the Bank to pay Murphy 130 IATs did not become a Payment Order until it was received by the Bank's Executor on May 23. Since the Payment Order did not exist as such on April 11, Elysion's message of that date that the Bank paid its outstanding IAT POs naturally did not satisfy that Payment Order. I find the statement to be TRUE. On an additional note, I would remind readers that the principle that a Player can not be required to abide by an Order which e has not received is based on the best interests of the game, and thus applies *only* when the Rules are unclear. Note that Rule 1793 also provides that when the holder of an Office changes, and an unfulfilled Order is directed at that Office, the responsibility to abide by that Order attaches to the new holder of the Office. One might imagine a case where an Order is delivered privately to the holder of an Office, and is received by em (thus the Order is already properly executed), and then the Officer changes, with the new Officer being unaware of the Order. In this case, R1793 is quite clear that the responsibility dicated by the Order transfers to the new Officer. Although it may be highly undesirable that the Officer is required to abide by an Order of which e is unaware, R1793 is quite clear on the matter, and thus my argument from the best interests of the game cannot be applied in such a case. ======================================================================== Judge's Evidence: ======================================================================== Justice's Combined Arguments: Having discussed this issue together, we Justices provide the following Arguments: The first determination to make is whether or not the PO refered to even existed. The Rules require that Administrative Orders (including the PO executed by lee on 11 March) be "published in the Public Forum". To "publish" is defined as "1 a : to make generally known b : to make public announcement of 2 a : to disseminate to the public". It is our decision that sending a message to a Public Forum with a reasonable expectation that it would be forwarded to all Players is sufficient action to "make a public announcement" or to "disseminate to the public". Since Rule 1808 goes on to say that an Administrative Order does "take effect upon publication", it is our opinion that the PO in question did indeed exist at the time it was sent to the Public Forum. Specifically, it existed on March 11. The second determination is whether Elysion's blanket statement on April 11 was successful at all. CFJ's 1214 and 1215 seem to form a certain consensus on conditional statements which would also seem to apply to blanket statements. Specifically, it is the opinion of this tribunal that such statements based upon information legally available at the time within the context of the Game are successful. Thus, the blanket statement in question is generally successful. The third determination is whether said blanket statement would apply specifically to the PO which came into existence on March 11, even though the Recordkeepor required to act upon the information was not privy to that bit of information at the time. After great deliberation, it was determined that the key point is not whether the Recordkeepor knew, but whether the Recordkeepor should have known. In this case, since the PO was distributed to a Public Forum, the Recordkeepor was *legally* aware of the PO whether or not e was actually aware of it. The Rules do not make that distinction, and we do not feel empowered to make that distinction either. The Rules only address actual game state rather than any misguided or incorrect perception of said game state. Thus, the blanket statement does indeed include the PO made on March 11. What about the comment Elysion makes after the actual action which specifies a couple of PO's? It is the opinion of this court that such comments, while perhaps interesting, do not have legal significance. In summary: (a) the PO did indeed exist as of March 11 (b) the blanket statement was effective in addressing all PO's, as determined by actual game state rather than imperfect perception (c) thus the blanket statement did satisfy the PO in question It was a sore temptation to Rule that the perceived game state was of greater importance due to the apparent availability of the information. The pitfalls of such an approach are many, although the drawbacks are not immediately obvious. In general, the conclusion was that any actual actions based solely upon perception would be unwise. Also, due to the potential for abuse, we strongly recommend legislation to ban the intentional tampering with the delivery of email. Taral, Lead Justice lee, Justice Wes, Justice ========================================================================