status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3852
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3852 ===============================
If the indicated text in evidence were part of a rule, every
talisman would be its own class.
==========================================================================
Caller: G.
Judge: Jason
Judgement: FALSE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 13:52:57
Assigned to Jason: 20 Jun 2020 00:26:31
Judged FALSE by Jason: 21 Jun 2020 17:51:32
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
Indicated text: A talisman is an indestructible asset, tracked by the
Registrar, and with ownership wholly restricted to players and Agora.
There exists exactly one talisman for each player, and no other talismans;
if one does not exist for a certain player, it is created in eir
possession.
Rule 2578/1 (Power=3) Currencies [excerpt]
A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are
fungible.
Rule 2456/6 (Power=1) The Treasuror [excerpt]
The Treasuror's weekly report includes the list of all public
classes of assets.
Caller's Arguments:
The only type of asset explicitly defined as a "class" is currencies which
are fungible. In the above text, each talisman is not fungible with the
others. Is every non-fungible asset in a class of its own? (phrasing it
colloquially that way you can see that "uniqueness" in common parlance can
define its own class). But that would make the Treausor's job difficult.
Or are there natural groupings (e.g. "Talisman" as a class)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jason's Evidence:
Rule 2618/1 [Excerpt]:
Promises are a class of assets, tracked by the Notary. Their
essential attributes are their text and creator. A person CAN, by
announcement, grant emself a promise, specifying its text and
becoming its creator. A promise's owner is referred to as its
bearer. Promises with the same text, creator, and bearer are
fungible. Promises with the same text and creator SHOULD be
referred to by the same title, but the title is not an essential
attribute of the promise, just a way of referring to it.
Judge Jason's Arguments:
First, I will dispense with the caller's suggestion that every
non-fungible asset might be a class of its own. This cannot be true
because Rule 2618 explicitly says that "Promises are a cash of assets",
and not all promises are fungible. This implies that certain
non-fungible assets can be in the same class.
Now, I must determine whether, in the hypothetical universe with the
indicated text as a rule, talismans form a class of assets. "Class" is
not explicitly defined for assets in the Rules, so it has its common
language meaning (where not superseded by a group of assets being
explicitly described as a "class").
Merriam-Webster online lists 6 definitions for "class" as a noun, but
this is clearly the most applicable: "a group, set, or kind sharing
common attributes" (it then proceeds to list some examples), and this
agrees with what most people think of as a "class". The group of all
talismans would fulfill this criteria - they all share the attribute of
"being a talisman for a player" and a general function (permitting
acting-on-behalf under R2532), so it seems reasonable to call them a
class. This is also consistent with the hypothetical rules text - it
certainly seems to think that "talismans" can be referred to as a group
- "There exists exactly one talisman for each player, and no other
talismans."
I find FALSE.
==========================================================================
