From - Thu Jul 6 18:08:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by osgood.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sj8uc2.kqr.30ahi43 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 22:31:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA25199 for agora-official-list; Wed, 31 May 2000 02:14:09 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 CAA25196 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 02:14:07 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id MAA98420 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 12:22:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from msuacad.morehead-st.edu(147.133.1.1) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma098418; Wed, 31 May 00 12:22:30 +1000 Received: (from mpslon01@localhost) by msuacad.morehead-st.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e4V2JwR15585 for agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Tue, 30 May 2000 22:19:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Slone Message-Id: <200005310219.e4V2JwR15585@msuacad.morehead-st.edu> Subject: OFF: CFJ 1225 Judged TRUE To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-official) Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:19:57 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: sj8uc2.kqr.30ahi43 ============================== CFJ 1225 ============================== The Transfer Orders which Peekee issued in the email identified by Message-ID: <20000524113533.52162.qmail@hotmail.com> were improperly or invalidly executed. ======================================================================== Called by: Wes Judge: Palnatoke Judgement: TRUE Judge selection: Eligible: Chuck, Crito, Elysion, Kelly, Palnatoke, Peekee, Sherlock, Steve, Taral, harvel, lee, t Not eligible: Caller: Wes Barred: - Had eir turn: Murphy Already served: - Defaulted: Harlequin By request: Blob, Michael On Hold: - Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Novalis, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Wes 28 May 2000 16:41:45 -0700 Assigned to Palnatoke: 29 May 2000 10:08:17 +0000 Judged TRUE by Palnatoke: 30 May 2000 23:24:20 +0200 Motion 1225.1 granted by 30 May 2000 23:24:20 +0200 Palnatoke: Judgement published: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Motions: We politely request that the Judge Vacate any or all of the Transfer Orders in question, per Rule 1809. ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Although the Rules are quite ambiguous regarding whether or not Peekee may have been successful in satisfying the Payment Order in question, they do provide a reasonable Appeal process for this type of situation in Rule 1809. Of course, once the Transfer Orders have been Vacated, they will cease to have *any* effect, including the possible effect of satisfying a particular Payment Order. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: >From owner-agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Wed May 24 04:42:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.16]) by mail3.aracnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA21337 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 04:42:09 -0700 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA21230 for agora-business-list; Wed, 24 May 2000 11:29:19 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 LAA21227 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 11:29:17 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id VAA77305 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 21:36:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from law-f101.hotmail.com(209.185.131.164) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma077303; Wed, 24 May 00 21:35:46 +1000 Received: (qmail 52163 invoked by uid 0); 24 May 2000 11:35:33 -0000 Message-ID: <20000524113533.52162.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 194.83.240.42 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2000 04:35:33 PDT X-Originating-IP: [194.83.240.42] From: "Alan Riddell" To: agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Subject: BUS: Transfers and then a CFJ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:35:33 BST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Status: RO 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. I hereby make a CFJ on the following statement, "There are no Payment Orders in Stems naming Peekee as the Payor" With arguments and evidence as above. Peekee PS I hope there is not anything obvious that I have left out here. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ======================================================================== Judge Palnatoke's Arguments: The TOs in question are: TO1: I hereby Transfer 20 Stems to the bank to satisfy the Payment Order I owe in that Currency. TO2: I hereby transfer -40 Stems to the Bank (This is a Transfer Order if possessing negative quantities of Currency are allowed.) TO3: I hereby Transfer 20 Stems to the bank to satisfy the Payment Order I owe in that Currency. Rule 1598/8 says, in part: 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. Rule 1732/3 says, in part: 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 ... (iv) the Transfer Order would not have resulted in an entity possessing a negative quantity of Currency. Since Peekee had no Stems at the time of TO1, the TO would have resulted in em possessing a negative quantity of Currency. Therefore the PO could not be satisfied. Hence, the TO is invalid. As to TO2: This is only a TO if possessing a negative quantity of a Currency is allowed. Rule 1467/6 says, in part: There may exist Currencies, which are classes of entities. In other words, a Currency consists of a number of similar units, and a negative number of units cannot exist. A similar situation: We can imagine the existance of one Peekee, or no Peekee, or any positive number of Peekees, but there cannot be a negative number of Peekees. So, TO2 is not a TO. Besides, since transfering -40 Stems to the Bank seems to be the equivalent of transfering 40 Stems *from* the Bank, and Peekee is not the Executor of the said Bank, this TO would be invalid, too - and Peekee would probably be guilty of Misrepresentation. With TO1 invalid and TO2 not a TO, the situation for TO3 is the same as for TO1, so that one is invalid, too. All in all, the Statement is TRUE. The Caller moved that I Vacate the TOs in question, per Rule 1809. I hereby do. ======================================================================== Judge Palnatoke's Evidence: Rule 1467/6 (Power=1) Definition of a Currency There may exist Currencies, which are classes of entities. Each Currency shall have a Minimum Unit Quantity, abbreviated MUQ, which shall be 1 unless otherwise specified. All transfers and holdings of each Currency shall be rounded off to the nearest multiple of its MUQ. 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. 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. ======================================================================== Clerk of the Courts harvel -- Michael Slone