==============================  CFJ 1255  ==============================

    Rule 1586 should be interpreted such that the Rule created by
    Proposal 4090 (Debt Conversion) has no effect, since any outstanding
    debts and liabilities in Basic Currencies were canceled when Basic
    Currencies were abolished from the Rules.

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

Caller:                                 Oerjan

Judge:                                  Elysion
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Oerjan:                       08 Dec 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Assigned to Elysion:                    07 Jan 2001 03:27:39 GMT
Judged FALSE by Elysion:                13 Jan 2001 16:45:41 GMT

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

Caller's Evidence:

[date approximate]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT A:  Rule 1586/2 (Power=2)
            Definition and Continuity of Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------

      No two Rule-defined entities shall have the same name or
      nickname.

      If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended
      such that they no longer define that entity, then that
      entity along with all its properties shall cease to exist.

      If the Rules defining an entity are amended such that they
      still define that entity but with different properties,
      that entity and its properties shall continue to exist to
      whatever extent is possible under the new definitions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT B:  Proposal #4090 by Steve, AI=2
            Debt conversion
            Adopted 8 Dec 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Create a Rule entitled "Debt conversion" with Power = 2, with the
following text:

      Upon the creation of this Rule, all outstanding debts and
      liabilities denominated in Voting Tokens, Indulgence Auction
      Tokens, or Proposal Notes, are converted into debts for an equal
      number of Stems.

      Where the original debts or liabilities arose in connection with
      the conduct of an Auction, satisfaction of the converted Stem
      debts constitutes satisfaction of the debts arising from the
      Auction.

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

Judge Elysion's Arguments:

    Rule 1586 should be interpreted such that the Rule created by
    Proposal 4090 (Debt Conversion) has no effect, since any outstanding
    debts and liabilities in Basic Currencies were canceled when Basic
    Currencies were abolished from the Rules.

This statement deals with both debts and liabilities. The latter term
appears in only 3 rules (one of which is rule 1961, the rule created by
proposal 4090). From rule 1853/6 (Levying Taxes):

    Upon the announcement of a tax levy conforming with the above
    requirements, each taxable entity becomes liable to the Bank
    for a debt equal to the percentage stated in the announcement
    of that entity's holdings in the taxed Currency at the time of
    the announcement of the levy.

>From rule 1887/7 (Default Procedure for Auctions):

    Upon the announcement of the Auction Results, for each
    winning Bid, the winning Bidder becomes liable to the Bank
    for the amount of the winning Bid. Unless specified
    otherwise, when one of these debts is satisfied, the
    Auctioneer shall transfer one of the items under auction to
    the debtor.

Rule 1887 refers to "one of these debts," which this Judge interprets to
refer to the liabilities caused by the previous sentence. In the context
of the excerpt from rule 1853, it is reasonable to read "becomes liable"
as "incurs a debt." This suggests that under the rules, a liability is
equivalent to a debt. The definition of liability at www.m-w.com supports
this:

2 : something for which one is liable; especially : pecuniary obligation :
DEBT -- usually used in plural

(Definitions 1 and 3 were not relevant.)

However, rule 1596/5 (Debt) defines Debt (although not capitalized in the
rules, I capitalize it here for clarity) differently from the everyday
English word debt. So are liabilities Debts or debts? And which does
proposal 4090 refer to?

In the rules, the word "debt" is actually Debt because 1596 gives the word
"debt" in the rules a different meaning than the everyday meaning. Thus,
the liabilities referred to by rules 1853 and 1887 are actually Debts. In
eir judgment in CFJ 1257, Judge Kelly argues that Debts are liabilities for
Property. Kelly's argument is consistent with this interpretation of rules
1853 and 1887 because those liabilities involve Property. Furthermore,
Kelly's argument is consistent with the definition of liability: debt, in
its everyday meaning.

Rule 1961 refers to both Debts and liabilities. Since Peekee incurred a
liability for a non-Property, it is a liability and a debt but not a Debt.
Thus, rule 1961 converted Peekee's liability. However, the statement is
about the interpretation of rule 1586. Suppose, for a moment, that rule
1586 did not exist. Peekee would still have a liability and this liability
would still be converted by rule 1961. Thus, the statement as given is
FALSE.

I note that the intended statement "Proposal 4090 converted nothing" is
also FALSE, but for a different reason.

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