==============================  CFJ 1854  ==============================

    It is possible to spend VCs that one does not own.


Caller:                                 avpx

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by avpx:                         24 Dec 2007 18:36:04 GMT
Assigned to root:                       07 Jan 2008 12:13:19 GMT
Judged FALSE by root:                   14 Jan 2008 03:09:54 GMT


Judge root's Arguments:

The argument that has been advanced in favor of the truth of this
statement is that an expenditure is a form of loss, thereby permitting
Rule 2126/48 to waive the loss when the spender has no VCs.

Rule 2166/2 defines "to lose" an asset as "to have it destroyed from
one's possession".  The verb "spend" is not defined by the rules, but
a search on dictionary.com gives these asset-related definitions:

    * to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of (money, wealth,
resources, etc.)

    * To pay out (money)

It also includes "to use up, consume, or exhaust"; but this is given
as a less common, not specifically asset-related definition, so I will
endeavor to use the common definition above, "to pay out".

Based on this definition, it is evident that "spending" VCs is
actually a form of transfer.  It is not a form of destruction and
therefore not a loss.  The question then arises that asks to what
entity VCs are transferred when spent, but R2166/2 answers this
question readily:  "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is
owned by the Bank."  Thus I find CFJ 1854 to be FALSE.

I have previously a separate argument on this case, which I will quote
in support of this conclusion:

    Accepting for the moment that spending a VC is considered a means
    of losing it, if you attempt to spend a VC that you don't have,
    then the loss is waived.  Thus you have failed to lose anything,
    and so you have also failed to spend it.