I favor the below case.
The below case is CFJ 3772. I assign it to G.
On 9/1/2019 6:15 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 8/30/19 2:57 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
This is NOT a CFJ, but is formatted like one because I see no reason why I
shouldn't. I might submit it later if there's disagreement.
I was thinking about this because of my question of R1586.
(Fake) CFJ: "Existing is a regulated action."
Alright, I guess I'll go ahead with this (statement/evidence/arguments
unchanged).
I CFJ: "Existing is a regulated action."
Evidence:
{
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 2166:
An asset is an entity defined as such by a document that has been
granted Mint Authority by the Rules (hereafter the asset's backing
document), and existing solely because its backing document
defines its existence. An asset's backing document can generally
specify when and how that asset is created, destroyed, and
transferred.
Rule 1586:
If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
defines the second entity both before and after the amendment, but
with different attributes, then the second entity and its
attributes continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under
the new definitions.
}
Arguments:
{
There are certainly places where the Rules "limit, allow, enable, or permit"
the action of existing. I've included two in evidence: Rule 2166 permits the
existence of assets, and Rule 1586 explicitly limits the existence of
entities that are defined by other entities. In addition, an argument could
be made that the Rules "enable" all other game-defined entities to exist.
This fulfills criterion (1) in Rule 2125 for making the action of existing a
regulated action.
}
