==============================  CFJ 1850  ==============================

    pikhq won in Message-Id: <200712202153.34050.josiahw@gmail.com>

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

Caller:                                 Murphy
Barred:                                 pikhq

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Murphy:                       22 Dec 2007 05:01:50 GMT
Assigned to root:                       22 Dec 2007 09:31:09 GMT
Judged FALSE by root:                   07 Jan 2008 17:39:09 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

pikhq claimed to create 100 points in eir possession, then claimed to
win on points.  However, while Rule 2166 (Assets) generally allows the
recordkeepor of an asset to create that asset, it does not explicitly
allow em to determine the owner, nor to gain that asset, nor to award
that asset to emself.

If (e.g.) a contest defined beads as a currency, and explicitly
allowed the contestmaster to create beads in a given entity's
possession, then that would be backed up by Rule 2166's "subject to
modification by its backing document" clause.  However, in the case
of points, Rule 2179 (Points) is silent on the issue.

If Rule 2166 is interpreted as not allowing the Scorekeepor to
determine the owner, then it defaults the owner to the Bank, and so
pikhq's claimed win was unsuccessful.

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

Judge root's Arguments:

Initiator's Arguments:

pikhq claimed to create 100 points in eir possession, then claimed to
win on points.  However, while Rule 2166 (Assets) generally allows the
recordkeepor of an asset to create that asset, it does not explicitly
allow em to determine the owner, nor to gain that asset, nor to award
that asset to emself.

If (e.g.) a contest defined beads as a currency, and explicitly
allowed the contestmaster to create beads in a given entity's
possession, then that would be backed up by Rule 2166's "subject to
modification by its backing document" clause.  However, in the case
of points, Rule 2179 (Points) is silent on the issue.

If Rule 2166 is interpreted as not allowing the Scorekeepor to
determine the owner, then it defaults the owner to the Bank, and so
pikhq's claimed win was unsuccessful.


Goethe has offered the following counter-argument:

Arggh!  I thought I waited and had consensus here.  FWIW, I think it's
far-fetched, if one is "generally permitted" to create assets, and
each asset has an owner, then one is "generally permitted" to create
assets for arbitrary owners (or else one isn't generally permitted at
all, which is self-contradictory).   -G.


I do not believe that the usage of the word "generally" here
authorizes the recordkeepor to arbitrarily specify the parameters of
asset creation.  Rather, it appears to combine with the clause
"subject to modification by its backing document", to indicate what
the default authorization is where it is left unmodified.  The word
"generally" is unnecessary in this interpretation, but this does not
mean that we should necessarily read more into its usage.

As Initiator Murphy has argued, if the recordkeepor cannot generally
select an owner for the created assets, then they would come into
existence with no owner, from which Rule 2166 tells us that the owner
is the Bank.  So the recordkeepor is not prevented from creating
assets by this interpretation, and I find both that this does not
conflict with the "generally permitted" language, and that the rule is
not self-contradictory.

Additionally, I find it interesting that the authorization clause
submits itself to arbitrary "modification" by the backing document,
rather than to the safer possibility of simple restriction.  If the
recordkeepor were generally permitted to create assets in any manner,
this would be unnecessary, as any mechanism that a backing document
might reasonably define would be included in the class of restrictions
over the general permission.  Using Murphy's interpretation, however,
"modification" is necessary in allowing recordkeepors to create assets
in the possession of particular entities.

Finally, because the sentence does allow for specialization of its
mechanism, we should strive to interpret it as precisely as possible.
Thus "An asset generally CAN be created by its recordkeepor by
announcement..." should be taken to mean exactly that, with no extra
qualifications.

For all the reasons given above, I find CFJ 1850 to be FALSE.

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