status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3750
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3750 ===============================
In this message, G. destroyed a coin.
==========================================================================
Caller: G.
Judge: twg
Judgement: FALSE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by G.: 01 Jul 2019 15:29:30
Assigned to twg: 03 Jul 2019 00:52:46
Judged FALSE by twg: 03 Jul 2019 10:11:12
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
The award in question is not a fee-based action at all. R2579 specifies
that if a *correct* fee-announcement is (but e.g. the actor does not have
the fee) then no asset holdings are changed. In the case of an
"incorrect" fee-announcement, there's no fail-safe that I can find one
way or the other - do the assets change?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caller's Evidence:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:29 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
I award myself the Patent Title "nouveau riche" by paying a fee of 1
Coin for this sole purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge twg's Arguments:
On July 3, 2019 3:05 AM, James Cook wrote:
Gratuitous:
I don't think I understood G.'s argument. As far as I can tell, this
is straightforward. R2579 says "To perform a fee-based action, an
entity ... must announce", and later "Upon such an announcement". I
think the first excerpt is clearly only talking about fee-based
actions, and the second excerpt refers to the first and so is also
only talking about fee-based actions. As G. points out in eir original
argument, this is not a fee-based action. So R2579 does not define any
mechanism for G. to destroy a Coin when no fee-based action is
involved.
Precisely so.
Assets CANNOT be destroyed except as explicitly specified by their
backing document (R2577/2 "Asset Actions"), which for coins is the
Ruleset as a whole. The Ruleset specifies the following mechanisms by
which a coin can be destroyed:
* by announcement, if it is owned by a contract and the contract permits
it (R1742/21 "Contracts");
* immediately, if it is owned by an entity other than a player or the
Lost and Found Department (R2576/0 "Ownership");
* without objection, if it is owned by the Lost and Found Department
(R2576/0);
* by announcement, by its owner (R2577/2);
* upon announcement of the performance of a fee-based action by the
coin's owner if it is the fee and there is no recipient specified for it
(R2579/0 "Fee-based actions").
The first three mechanisms clearly do not apply here because G. is not a
player and is neither a contract nor the Lost and Found Department. Nor
does the last, because, as Falsifian correctly identifies, G. did not
announce eir performance of a fee-based action in the message. So the
only mechanism that could plausibly apply is "by announcement".
R478/34 "Fora" says:
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.
Did G. unambiguously and clearly specify the action of destroying one of
eir coins and announce that e performed it? No, of course not. Even
disregarding the question of which grammatical phrasings count as an
announcement, it's so ambiguous that e had to call a CFJ about it!
I judge CFJ 3750 FALSE.
==========================================================================
