CFJ 1091

 The Proposal titled "Electees" submitted by Harlequin on 02 April,
 1998 had a priority of one as of 09 April, 1998.


Judge:        Chuck

Judgement:    TRUE

Eligible:     Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, elJefe, Harlequin, Jester,
              Kolja A., Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Sherlock, Steve,
              Swann, Time Agent

Not eligible:
Caller:       Crito
Barred:       -
Disqualified: -
On hold:      General Chaos, Oerjan


  Called by Crito, Thu, 09 Apr 1998 13:02:51 -0400
  Assigned to Chuck, Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:07:50 +0100
  Judged TRUE, Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:16:58 -0500
  Published, Sat, 18 Apr 1998 12:45:35 +0100


Judgement: TRUE

Reasons and arguments:

I judge this statement to be TRUE, and generally agree with the
Caller's arguments.

I would phrase the matter a little differently than the Caller,
though.  Caller contends that R1802 causes a vacated TO to be
"deprived of its direct effect", that of placing an obligation on the
Recordkeepor to note the transfer.  R1802 states "The effect of
vacating an Order is to permanently deny the vacated Order from having
any effect."  I would argue that it is common sense, as well as in the
best interests of the game, to intepret this to mean that vacating an
Order denies the vacated Order from having any effect *from the time
the Vacation occurs*.  I do not believe that R1802 reverses any of the
effects of a vacated Order which took place before the Vacation.

Evidence: Rule 1802

Rule 1802/0 (Power=1)
Vacation of Orders

      The effect of vacating an Order is to permanently deny the
      vacated Order from having any effect.  Vacating an Order to
      Vacate reinstates the ability of the vacated Order to have
      effect, as of the moment the Order to Vacate is itself vacated.

Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998


(Caller's) Arguments:

Harlequin payed one P-Note at the time e submitted this Proposal in
order to raise the priority to one.  Although e later vacated that
particular Transfer Order, the priority of "Electees" had already been
raised, and there is no Rule that causes the priority to be reduced
when the TO is vacated.  The argument has been put forth that R1802
accomplishes this.  However, I contend that R1802 causes a vacated
Order to be deprived of its direct effect, that of placing an
obligation on someone to perform some action, but does cause the
reversal any collateral effects that occured only indirectly, as a
result of the action having been performed.  To support this view, I
point to the Rules for vacating Payment Orders that have been
satisfied.  The Rules indicate that the indirect effects of a vacated
PO, causing a TO to be issued and a transfer to have occurred, are not
simply reversed by the vacation of the PO.  Instead a new PO must be
issued and another transfer take place to complete the vacation.