Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3061

==============================  CFJ 3061  ==============================

    ais523 has more than 50 points.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  woggle
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by ais523:                       05 Jul 2011 16:17:41 GMT
Assigned to Tanner L. Swett:            07 Jul 2011 02:13:36 GMT
Tanner L. Swett recused:                24 Jul 2011 17:55:13 GMT
Assigned to Yally:                      24 Jul 2011 18:27:39 GMT
Yally recused:                          14 Aug 2011 17:19:09 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     14 Aug 2011 17:44:10 GMT
Judged FALSE by woggle:                 20 Aug 2011 04:26:34 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

I see no reason why the creation of the promise would fail;
just because its text is a proposal would not prevent it being created.
However, I suspect the scam attempted above has two major flaws; one is
that the author of a promise's text needn't be the author of the promise
itself, and the other is that although a coauthor, in common speak, is
an author of something, the promises rule is worded as if to expect that
a promise has only one author, and thus is probably too ambiguous as to
who it is that transfers the points.

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

I submit the following proposal, which is also a promise (title =
Proposals and Promises are both text-bearing entities, coauthor =
Murphy, AI = 1):
{{{
I transfer 250 points to ais523.
}}}

Then I cash the above proposal, then (if it still exists) I retract it.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

I'm pretty sure this fails because the rules explicitly define "co-author" 
for a proposal to have a secondary role different than the author (or set of

equal co-authors, as in common language).  Proposals always has one author 
(the submitter) and co-authors are 'in addition', not 'instead of' (R106, 
R1950, R1681, R2330). So a co-author of a proposal is, by definition, not 
the author of that proposal.

========================================================================

Judge woggle's Arguments:

Promises are not documents; promises are abstract entities which have a
property called their text, which may be a document. Proposals, on the
other hand, are documents. ais523 may have succeeded at creating a
promise whose text was also a proposal, but because e was the one who
created the promise, per R2337, e is the promise's only author, even if
e is not the only author of the promise's text.

Additionally, even under the theory that Murphy was a co-author of the
promise, the rule defining co-authors for promises states that "A
co-author of a proposal is a person (*other than its author*)" (emphasis
added) implying that the roles are mutually exclusive.

========================================================================