Well, now that the CFJs from the Troubles have been assigned, I have one
that I've wanted to do for a little while:
CFJ: "Coming into existence is a regulated action."
Evidence:
{
CFJ 3772.
Rule 2125:
> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
> permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which
> the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part
> of its effect, modify information for which some player is
> required to be a recordkeepor.
Rule 2350: "A player CAN create a proposal by announcement, specifying
its text and optionally specifying any of the following attributes [...]".
Rule 2166: "An asset's backing document can generally specify when and
how that asset is created, destroyed, and transferred."
}
Arguments for TRUE:
{
In CFJ 3772, on whether "Existing is a regulated action", H. Judge G.
found that "Changes in existence state (e.g. ceasing to exist) are
indeed actions". Coming into existence is a change in existence state
and is therefore, by precedent, an action.
Because coming into existence is an action, it can be a Regulated Action
under Rule 2125. The Rules regulate how certain entities can come into
existence. For instance, the rules "enable" proposals to come into
existence when a player creates them, since, without that clause, there
would be no way for a person to create a proposal. Similarly, the rules
allow backing documents to specify how assets can come into existence;
this clause "allows" and "enables" assets to come into existence; these
examples show how the action of coming into existence satisfies
condition (1) of Rule 2125.
Condition (2) also applies in this case, as Rule 2350 specifies that
attempting to create a proposal without specifying certain
characteristics would fail.
}
Arguments for FALSE:
{
The entity coming into existence is not performing an action, since it
doesn't yet exist to perform that action, so the Rules regulating the
creation of things only regulate the action of the creation, and not the
action of the entity coming into existence.
}
Not part of arguments: I'll note that I'm leaning towards TRUE, but this
case is more out of curiosity than anything else (as was 3772). Also, if
the H. Arbitor doesn't want to deal with this case right now, I'll
happily retract it, as nothing actually depends on this (not a pledge).
--
Jason Cobb
