From Tue Sep 23 10:35 EDT 1997
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id KAA28283 for; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:35:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom-@localhost)
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA09853
	for agora-official-list; Tue, 23 Sep 19

                               CFJ 930

"No Payment Orders have thus far been successfully executed, for the 
reason that none exist." 


Judge:       Chuck
Justices:    ChrisM (pro-S), elJefe (J), Michael (C)

Judgement:   TRUE 

Eligible:    Andre, Blob, Calabresi, ChrisM, Crito, Harlequin, 
             Kolja A., Steve, Vir, Zefram

Not eligible:
Caller:      Morendil
On request:  Vanyel
On hold:     Swann
Past Judge:  Chuck, Elde, elJefe, General Chaos, Michael, Murphy, Oerjan

  Called by Morendil, Wed, 16 Jul 1997 08:47:14 +0100
  Assigned to Elde, Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:17:04 +0100
  Elde defaults
  Assigned to Chuck, Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:39:56 +0100
  Judged TRUE, Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:57:34 -0500 (CDT)
  Published, Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:26:49 +0100
  Appealed by Crito, Wed, 30 Jul 1997 11:14:30 -0400
  Appealed by Andre, Mon, 4 Aug 1997 20:30:19 +0200 (MET DST)
  Appealed by Antimatter, Mon, 4 Aug 1997 11:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
  Appealed by Steve, Tue, 5 Aug 1997 17:39:17 +1000 (EST)
  Appeals process begun, Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:26:52 +0100
  elJefe SUSTAINS, Sat, 9 Aug 1997 21:27:10 +0000
  Michael OVERTURNS/reverses, Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:04:33 +0100
  General Chaos defaults
  Murphy appointed as new Justice, Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:57:56 +0100
  Murphy defaults
  Oerjan appointed as new Justice, Thu, 28 Aug 1997 12:42:09 +0100
  Oerjan defaults
  Vlad appointed as new Justice, 15 Sep 1997 18:07:03 +0200 (MET DST)
  Vlad defaults
  ChrisM appointed as new Justice, as of this message


Appeals decisions 


Justice elJefe's decision: SUSTAIN 

CFJ 930 

"No Payment Orders have thus far been successfully executed, for the 
reason that none exist." 

Judge Chuck relied on the reasoning of CFJ 929: 

However, at the time of the CFJ, only one Transfer Order could have been
submitted, namely the Chancellor's transfer of 9 Indulgences from the Bank to
Elde. At that time the Mint (which was Mintor of Indulgences) no longer had
Mint Authority due to the effects of Proposal 3533. Thus Indulgences ceased to
exist as a Currency by Rule 1579, and so the Chancellor's posting, not
referring to any Currency, was not a Transfer Order.

The only point in dispute is whether Indulgences continued to exist as a
currency after the adoption of Proposal 3533.  If they did then the reasoning
in the quoted paragraph of CFJ 929 is correct and the judgement of TRUE stands.
If not then the judgement in both CFJs should be FALSE, since the
Misanthropists' currencies failed to confuse itself with Payment Orders or
Transfer Orders defined in the Rules.

Quoting from Rule 1579: "If the Mintor of a Currency ceases to exist, or ceases
to have the authority to be a Mintor, then all units of that Currency are
destroyed, and that Currency ceases to exist."  There is unchallenged evidence
that the old Mintor for Indulgences ceased to exist, and that no new Mintor was
designated.  Therefore unless this conflicts with some higher-power Rule, it
must be applied.

Rule 1435 begins "Indulgences are a Currency."  One possible interpretation is
that Indulgences were destroyed and ceased to exist at a given instant; but
then immediately after that R1435 re-established Indulgences as a Currency
without a Mintor, which then is immune to R1579 since it has no Mintor which
can either cease existing or lose Mint authority. (*)

This has several things wrong with it.  Rule 1435 is silent as to whether
Indulgences have a Mintor or not, so there is no conflict on this point with
R1579.  Thus any "re-establishment" of the currency must follow the first
sentence of R1579, which insists that each Currency has a Mintor.

Further, the whole notion does not give sufficient respect to the natural
meaning of "cease to exist".  A rule mandating that something ceases to exist
does not mean for the thing to have its existence interrupted temporarily and
then re-appear.  If R1579 is strong enough to destroy Indulgences (or P-notes)
as a currency, then it is strong enough to keep them destroyed.

This brings us to the central question: _is_ R1579 strong enough to do what it
says?  Well, does it conflict with R1435?  No.  R1435 simply says that
Indulgences are a Currency; R1579 says that they are in fact a destroyed
Currency. (**) This is similar to the repeal of a Rule; longstanding Game
Custom holds that a Rule or Proposal which repeals another Rule is not for that
sole reason in conflict with it. (***) Thus 1579 did cause Indulgences to cease
to exist, and they still cease to exist to the present time.


(*) This possibility was raised during the discussion of the issues surrounding
a similar situation with regards to P-notes, so it is as well to dispose of it

(**) My fellow learned Justice Michael objected that an earlier version
involves a "secret" insertion of "defunct" into the rule. This wording is what
I meant.

(***) My fellow learned Justice Michael also objected here, pointing out that
Rules and Rule changes occupy separate worlds.  But I feel this misses the
point of my analogy: a Rule Change (proposed or unproposed) is effective only
by virtue of Rules that allow it to take effect.  Do those Rules (which affect
the content of the Ruleset) actually _conflict_ with the Rule being repealed?

This would be like having an implicit clause in each Rule that stated "This
rule may not be repealed"; game custom says it does not. Similarly, Rule 1479
does not contain an implied "this currency may not be destroyed" as part of its
defining sentence.


Justice Michael's decision: OVERTURN/reverse 

If Indulgences exist, then a Payment Order was executed by the Chancellor when
he attempted to transfer 9 Indulgences from the Bank to Elde.

If Indulgences exist, then the Indulgence Currency's Recordkeepor is authorised
to record and execute Payment Orders (R1596).

Thus, if Indulgences exist, the correct judgement for this CFJ is FALSE.

The argument that Indulgences do not exist is based on R1579, which states that
all Currencies have a Mintor and if a Currency should lose its Mintor, then it
is destroyed.  It is accepted that an entity known as the Mint was the Mintor
for Indulgences before the Pragmatic Currencies reform occurred.

By virtue of R1586, we must also accept that the Mint no longer exists, so it
would appear that the antecedent of the conditional sentence of the second
paragraph in R1597 holds.  So, what might prevent Indulgences from being
destroyed, as required by R1579?

The answer is the precedence taking R1435.  This states that "Indulgences are a
Currency".  This statement must remain true, whatever R1579 says to the
contrary.  My Fellow Justice elJefe claims that this is possible if one reads
"Indulgences are a Currency" as "Indulgences are a destroyed Currency".

This is a senseless contortion.  We do not need to put the rules through such
hoops.  We have rules taking precedence over each other all the time.  When we
read "Indulgences are a Currency", we know that this is equivalent to stating
that there exists a Currency whose name is "Indulgences".  But now the opposing
argument wants us to simultaneously read this as admitting the precise
opposite, that this Currency doesn't exist at all.

I refuse to make the Rules play such tricks.  If a high precedence rule says
that Indulgences exist, then the lower precedence R1579 can yammer on about
Mintors and the lack thereof all it likes.

Indulgences exist. 


Original Judgement: TRUE 

Reasons and arguments: 

Judge elJefe's reasoning on CFJ 929 applies here as well. 


(Caller's) Arguments: (none)