==============================  CFJ 1453  ==============================

    As a result of the formation of root's Pay Out Scam Contest (rPOSC),
    the Bank incurred a debt to root consisting of one or more
    properties.

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

Caller:                                 root

Judge:                                  t
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Sir Toby
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 1453a
Decision:                               SUSTAIN

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

History:

Called by root:                         05 Mar 2003 06:03:44 GMT
Assigned to t:                          11 Mar 2003 02:06:03 GMT
t recused:                              17 Mar 2003 20:09:21 GMT
Assigned to Sir Toby:                   21 Mar 2003 00:16:56 GMT
Judged TRUE by Sir Toby:                25 Mar 2003 03:01:52 GMT
Appealed by root:                       16 Jun 2005 22:11:56 GMT
Appealed by Maud:                       16 Jun 2005 22:57:57 GMT
Appealed by G.:                         16 Jun 2005 23:28:35 GMT
Appeal 1453a:                           16 Jun 2005 23:28:35 GMT
SUSTAINED on Appeal:                    11 Aug 2005 02:39:54 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

R1479a reads, in part:

          Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out one or more
          Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to
          that entity for those Properties, and the named Player
          shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the
          debt.

Since, by R1591, "A SLC has the power to constrain the actions of Players
in the same manner as the Rules," the Regulations of rPOSC are authorized
to require me to pay out currencies.

Now, the Bank does not fall under the SLC's Jurisdiction, and as such the
Regulations of rPOSC are not authorized to require anything of the Bank.
However, I argue that this is irrelevant, because the Regulations of rPOSC
in fact do not require the Bank to do anything; the requirement is only on
me to pay out currencies.  The requirement on the Bank to pay arises not
from the SLC, but rather from R1479a, which is activated by the SLC.

A possible counter-argument is that R1479a specifies that it is only
activated when the entity requiring the "pay out" action is a Rule, and
since the Regulations of rPOSC are not Rules, they do not successfully
trigger R1479a.

However, Rule 1594 requires me to obey the Regulations of rPOSC; to do
otherwise is a Class 1 Crime.  Therefore, Rule 1594 requires me to pay out
the currencies, and so R1594 is in fact that entity that triggers the pay
out clause of R1479.  This argument is supported by CFJ 1301, which found
that orders to pay out properties successfully create debts via the agency
of R1810, which requires orders to be obeyed.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 1479/6 (Power=1)
Definition of "Pay Out" and "Bill"

      (a) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out one or more
          Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to
          that entity for those Properties, and the named Player
          shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the
          debt. The Player is relieved of this obligation if the debt
          is satisfied before the public notice is posted.

      (b) If a Rule explicitly permits a Player to pay out one or more
          Properties to some entity, but does not require em to do so,
          then the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those
          Properties when the Player posts a public notice of the
          debt.

      (c) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to bill an entity for one
          or more Properties, that entity shall incur a debt to the
          Bank for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as
          soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt. The
          Player is relieved of this obligation if the bill is paid
          before the public notice is posted.


Rule 1591/0 (Power=1)
Jurisdiction of SLCs

      A SLC has the power to constrain the actions of Players in
      the same manner as the Rules.  However, a SLC has power over
      only those Players within its Jurisdiction, as defined in the
      Rules authorizing that SLC.

      The Jurisdiction of a SLC must be specified by the Rules,
      either directly or indirectly.  If the Jurisdiction of a SLC
      might vary over the course of the existence of the SLC, the
      Rules must specify a Player who is required to maintain a record
      of which Players are within the Jurisdiction of that SLC.


Rule 1594/2 (Power=1)
Violation of SLCs

      While a Player remains within the Jurisdiction of a SLC, e is
      required to abide by it, unless doing so would violate either
      the Rules or another SLC with higher precedence.  Violation of
      this requirement is the Class 1 Crime of Insubordination.


CFJ 1301
Judge Syllepsis's Arguments:

Rule 1479 clearly states that if a Rule requires a player to "pay
out" Properties, the Bank incurs a debt to the entity to which the
Properties are to be given.

Let there be a valid Order requiring a Player to "pay out" one or more
Properties to some entity. Then if there exists a Rule requiring the
Player to obey Orders, then by such a Rule the Player would be required to
"pay out" Properties to some entity, thus invoking Rule 1479.

Rule 1810 specifies that if a valid Order requires an action to be
performed within a specified time, and this action is not performed, then
the Player commits the Class 4 Crime of Contempt by Inaction. Thus by Rule
1810, such a valid Order invokes Rule 1479 if it is required to be
performed within a specific time frame.

Rule 1795 insures that a Rule without a time specification or an invalid
time specification automatically has the specification ASAP, thus invoking
Rule 1810 and thus Rule 1479.

Thus any valid Order has a time specification and thus invokes Rule 1810,
stating that the Order must be carried out. If the Order is to pay out one
or more Properties to some entity, then by Rule 1810 the Player is
required to pay out one or more Properties to some entity. This triggers
Rule 1479, so the Bank then incurs a debt.

Therefore, I judge this CFJ to be TRUE.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Steve:

By way of counterargument, I bring to the Judge's attention R1592:

      A SLC has the power to define the manner in which certain
      properties of entities are changed.  This power shall be limited
      to any property solely defined by that SLC and to any other
      property to which the Rules grant that SLC this authority.

If "being required to pay out Bank Currencies" is a property of an
entity (namely, root), then R1592 appears to limit the power of SLCs to
change that property.

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

Judge Sir Toby's Arguments:

The basic premise of the caller's argument is that the SLC of root's Pay
Out Scam Contest required the Contestmaster (root) to pay out several
properties to emself, thus incurring the debt referenced in the statement
of this CFJ. The caller's argument goes on to state that the Rules require
player's within the jurisdiction of a SLC must follow it, and thus root
was required by the Rules to pay out the properties, thus creating the
debt.

While considering this CFJ, my first task was to determine if the SLC of
root's Pay Out Scam Contest did indeed require that the Contestmaster pay
out one or more properties to emself. The initial CFJ did not contain the
SLC as evidence, so I was forced to look up the ACO for the contest. I
have attached a portion of the message containing the ACO as evidence. The
SLC contains the following regulation: "As soon as possible after the
formation of this Contest, the Contestmaster shall pay out to emself 0.5
VEs, 1 Indulgence, 1 Papyrus, and 10 Stems." The SLC of root's Pay Out
Scam Contest very clearly requires the Contestmaster to pay out several
properties to emself.

My next consideration for this CFJ was the definition of Pay Out. Rule
1479 contains the following "Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out
one or more Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to that
entity for those Properties..." The debts due to a pay out occur
automatically and do not rely on an announcement, thus the debts would be
incurred as a result of the creation of root's Pay Out Scam Contest. I
don't feel that the existence of a redundant ASAP clause in the SLC has
any effect on this. However, the real question arises out of the fact that
Rule 1479 seems to indicate that only the Rules can require a a player to
pay out some property. Since the SLC of root's Pay Out Scam Contest is not
a part of the Rules, I was tempted to return a judgement of FALSE since
only Rules could require a pay out to occur.

The caller argues that the rules require players within the jurisdiction
of a SLC (as root was in this situation) to abide by it (Rule 1594). Since
the Rules require root to abide by the SLC of root's Pay Out Scam Contest,
the caller argues that the Rules required root to pay out the properties.
I am not completely convinced by this argument and feel that there is
enough ambiguity in the Rules to permit me to apply the standards
prescribed in Rule 217: "game custom, commonsense, past Judgements, and
the best interests of the game".

The caller references a previous CFJ that dealt with a similar issue.
Particularly, it was found that a properly issued Order could require a
player to pay out one or more properties. While an Order is not a Rule
(similar to how a SLC is not a Rule), it is something that players are
forced to follow by the Rules (similar to how players are required to
abide by a SLC). In my opinion, this sets a strong enough precedent to
return a judgement of TRUE in this case.

In response to Steve's gratuitous arguments, I add the following:

Since root is within the jurisdiction of the SLC (Rule 1591), I would say
that the Rules grant the SLC the power to change the "being required to
pay out Bank Currencies" property of root. The power of SLCs to change
properties is not limited to just those properties solely defined by the
SLC. The Rules can also grant an SLC the authority for other properties.
Rule 1591 does this.

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

Judge Sir Toby's Evidence:

The portion of the message with the ACO for root's Pay Out Scam Contest:
http://www.agoranomic.org/pipermail/agora-business/2003-March/001006.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:03:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Ian Kelly <kellyia@earlham.edu>
Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
Subject: BUS: Pay out scam

I submit the following ***-delimited ACO:

***

This Organization shall be a Contest titled "root's Pay Out Scam
Contest". The Administrator, Foundor, and Contestmaster shall be root.
The Regulations shall be as follows:

1) As soon as possible after the formation of this Contest, the
   Contestmaster shall pay out to emself 0.5 VEs, 1 Indulgence, 1
   Papyrus, and 10 Stems.

2) The contestmaster may change the regulations at any time by
   announcement.

3) The contestmaster may dissolve the contest at any time by
   announcement.

***

I sign this ACO.

[snip]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Appellant G.'s Arguments:

Subordinate codes and contract-like thingies don't automagically create
empowerment the way they create constraints.

This case is currently relevant, as, if cardbooks pass, they try VERY
EXPLICITLY to empower sections of another document to define how
Rules-regulated nomic properties may be modified.  Contract Rules, the
inheritors of SLCs, may or may not so empower Contracts (that's the CFJ's
subject) while Agreement Rules I would argue do not.  Some guidance on how
explicit such empowerment should be would be useful for writing and
interpreting future Rules.

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