======================================================================
                               CFJ 1063

"There exists at least one VT that possesses at least 1 VT." 

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

Judge:       Michael

Judgement:   FALSE 

Eligible:    Andre, Calabresi, ChrisM, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, 
	     General Chaos, Harlequin, Kolja A., Michael, Murphy, 
	     Oerjan, Steve, Vir, Vlad

Not eligible: 
Caller:
Barred:
On request:  Vanyel
On hold:     

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

History:
  Called by Zefram, 29 Oct 1997 17:16:03 +0000 (GMT)
  Assigned to Michael, 30 Oct 1997 16:35:44 +0100 (MET)
  Judged FALSE by Michael, 3 Nov 1997 11:10:32 +0000
  Appealed by Swann, 3 Nov 1997 13:32:16 -0500 (EST)
  Appealed by Crito, 04 Nov 1997 09:30:24 -0500

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

Decision & Reasoning Judge:

Judgement: FALSE 

Reasons and arguments: 

The rules do not mandate what it is for entities to own or possess Currencies.
Yet it is precisely this ability which is presupposed in the rules and practice
involved with Transfer Orders.  Therefore, we use common sense in order to
resolve this question, and conclude that VTs can not possess VTs.

To reiterate: it is patently not common-sensical to allow units of currency to
own other units of currency.  Given the absence of legislation specifying that
this should be possible, there seems little reason to suppose that it should be
possible.

Of course, the initial language of the relevant rule about Transfer Orders
(R1598 "Transfer Orders") does suggest that a Transfer Order can specify any
entities as source and destination for the currencies transferred.  However,
subsequent language makes it clear that TOs may only originate from entities
that possess currencies.  Similarly, the destination entity must support the
notion of being "added to" (an unfortunate phrasing, but one present in the
rule: "When a Transfer Order is executed, ... the number of units of that
specified Currency shall be removed from the source entity and added to the
destination entity."

Thankfully game custom makes a strong case for interpreting "added to" as
meaning "passes into the ownership of".  

A more literal interpretation of this phrase would allow the above judgement to
stand, but would probably invalidate all current economic activity.  In this
alternative conception, transferring 1 VT to another VT would cause the 1 VT
transferred to the destination 1VT to be added to it, presumably resulting in 2
VTs.  Of course, one could also create an arbitrary amount of VTs by
transferring them to themselves.  This interpretation is clearly ridiculous so I
feel that justice is being upheld in appealing to common sense and game custom
to override the peculiar wording of R1598.

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