============================  Appeal 1357a  ============================

Panelist:                               t
Decision:                               REASSIGN

Panelist:                               Syllepsis

Panelist:                               Crito
Decision:                               SUSTAIN

Panelist:                               OscarMeyr
Decision:                               SUSTAIN



Appeal initiated:                       07 May 2002 13:04:39 GMT
Assigned to t (panelist):               09 May 2002 01:45:21 GMT
Assigned to Syllepsis (panelist):       09 May 2002 01:45:21 GMT
Assigned to Crito (panelist):           09 May 2002 01:45:21 GMT
Crito moves to SUSTAIN:                 13 May 2002 19:51:42 GMT
t moves to REASSIGN:                    15 May 2002 21:43:39 GMT
Syllepsis recused (panelist):           16 May 2002 16:05:00 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr (panelist):       16 May 2002 16:09:50 GMT
OscarMeyr moves to SUSTAIN:             16 May 2002 23:09:48 GMT
Final decision (SUSTAIN):               16 May 2002 23:09:48 GMT


Panelist Crito's Arguments:

R1942 gives a clear definition of what is "property" under
the Rules, whether or not other another Rule specifically
declares a particular entity to be property. In other words,
the Rules do not require that an entity be explicitly
declared "property", only that the rules permit the entity
to be possessed by another entity. Since the repeal of 1467
alone would not eliminate Currency nor the ability for
Players to possess it, (especially in light of R1586), it
seems to me that a judgement of TRUE is required and I
hereby vote to SUSTAIN the judgement.


Panelist t's Arguments:

If Rule 1467 was repealed, the Rules would no longer define the concept of
currencies. In that case, all references to currencies would have to be
interpreted as references to the real-world concept of currencies. This
would surely change a lot of things - something that the judge should
carefully consider. Everybody knows that real-world currencies can be
owned. As it is possible to possess and be indebted in currencies in a
real-world sense even if the Rules don't say so, I don't think that it
could be said that the Rules "permit" currencies to be possessed or
whatever would be necessary for currencies to be considered a Property. As
the judgement didn't consider these factors properly, I move to OVERTURN


Panelist OscarMeyr's Arguments:

If Rule 1467 was repealed, Currency would no longer be defined.  R1586
requires that if a Rule defining an entity is repealed (or amended to no
longer define the entity), then the entity shall cease to exist.

But Currency is defined by R1467 as a CATEGORY of entity, not an entity
unto itself.  So I believe that R1586 does not apply in this case; the
separate currencies would continue to exist as entities of the undefined
type "Currency."  Under R101, Currency would then be undefined and
unregulated.  So nothing would prohibit the separate currencies from
continuing to be Property.  In particular, the currencies would still be
permitted by the rules to be possessed by entities, meeting the primary
definition in R1942 of Property.

So if R1467 would be repealed, all occurrences of "Currency" in the
Rules would effectively be replaced by "Foobar."  But game entities
would still be permitted to possess currencies (foobars), so the
currencies (foobars) would still be Property.  I therefore uphold the
Judge's decision, and move to SUSTAIN.