On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, woggle wrote: > On 10/23/11 6:03 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > > I change all sitting players to standing. > > > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3114 > > > > ============================== CFJ 3114 ============================== > > > > If I cashed the above-quoted promise, it would cause G. to > > violate a rule. > > > > ======================================================================== > > I judge CFJ 3114 TRUE. See Pavitra's arguments in related CFJ 3115. > R478's simulation of G. publishing this document would be sufficient to > violate the R2143's requirement that reports are accurate.
Oops, in retrospect this was the wrong CFJ. The question is not on violating the rule (obviously it does), the question is on escaping punishment. I CFJ on the following statement: If the Promise cited in CFJ 3114 were cashed by ais523, G. would generally be found NOT GUILTY of the resulting violation. Arguments: 1. Once the promise is in someone else's hands, G. generally can't prevent the breach from occurring (see R1504(e)). 2. This promise contained an illegal action when the promise was created. The judge is asked to also opine on what would happen if the promise weren't illegal when written, but became illegal later (see R1504(d or e)).
