==============================  CFJ 3287  ==============================

    The Promise quoted above can be cashed.

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

Caller:                                 Roujo

Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Roujo:                        05 Nov 2012 14:10:29 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        11 Nov 2012 19:18:13 GMT
Judged FALSE by omd:                    12 Nov 2012 02:02:19 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 2338 states:
    { An entity CAN cash a promise in eir possession by announcing
      that e does so, provided either that all conditions required to
      be true for the promise to be cashed are true and determinate,
      or it has no such conditions. }
Basically, to cash a promise, the cashing condition must be
determinate and true. However, here's an excerpt from the cashing
condition of the quoted promise:
    { [...] and multiple copies
      of this promise cannot be cashed by the same player in the same
      message. }
As far as I can tell, nothing in the rules prevents multiple copies of
a promise to be cashed in the same message. Because of that, the
cashing condition will always evaluate to false and the promise cannot
be cashed, rule changes notwithstanding.

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

Caller's Evidence:

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Alex Smith <ais523@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> I submit 12 promises to the Tree:
>
> Text: {{{I transfer an ais523 trading card to the person who cashed this
> promise.}}}
> Cashing condition: {{{The person who cashed this promise transferred a
> trading card to ais523 that ais523 did not own a copy of before the
> transfer earlier in the same message as the cashing, and multiple copies
> of this promise cannot be cashed by the same player in the same
> message.}}}
> Destruction by author condition: {{{The current year is 2013 or
> later.}}}

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

Judge omd's Arguments:

This is what I noticed on IRC.  The full quote is:

Cashing condition: {{{The person who cashed this promise transferred a
trading card to ais523 that ais523 did not own a copy of before the
transfer earlier in the same message as the cashing, and multiple copies
of this promise cannot be cashed by the same player in the same
message.}}}

Although the interpretation didn't even strike ais523, not only is the
text in question clearly within a brace-delimited section labeled as a
"cashing condition", it's anded with another statement that's written
in the "correct" style as a condition.  It's well precedented that
when a literal interpretation of a message is well-formed, it should
generally be preferred; in CFJ 3246 it was held that "it is entirely
reasonable for 'this promise is not destroyed upon cashing' to be a
condition for cashing", and I find that this case is analogous:
"multiple copies of this promise cannot be cashed by the same player
in the same message" is indeed literally a condition for cashing.

This would create a paradox: if multiple copies of the promise can be
cashed, etc., then the condition is false, so the promise cannot be
cashed at all, so multiple copies can't; but if they can't, then there
is nothing to prevent multiple copies in particular from being cashed,
so they can.  Thus the cashing condition is not R1023 determinate, so
cashing fails.

FALSE.

I order ais523 to place a large notice on eir home page stating that
eir cashing condition was inaccurate.

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