======================================================================
                               CFJ 932

"No Player is currently authorized to execute Payment Orders for
 Indulgences pursuant to penalties expressed in terms of Blots."

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

Judge:        elJefe
Justices:     Antimatter (pro-S), Michael (C), Murphy (pro-J)

Orgnl Jdgmnt: TRUE
Judgement:    FALSE

Eligible:     +Andre, +Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, (elJefe),
              (General Chaos), Harlequin, Kolja A., (Michael), Murphy,
              +Oerjan, Steve, Swann, +Vlad

Not eligible:
Caller:       Morendil
Barred:       -
Disqualified: Vanyel
On hold:      Andre, Antimatter, Oerjan, Zefram

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

History:
  Called by Morendil, Sat, 26 Jul 1997 10:45:15 +0100
  Assigned to elJefe, Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:57:31 +0100
  Judged TRUE, Thu, 31 Jul 1997 16:13:02 +0000
  Published, Mon, 4 Aug 1997 11:34:15 +0100
  Appealed by Crito, Mon, 04 Aug 1997 09:21:50 -0400
  Appealed by Michael, Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:29:38 +0100
  Appealed by Oerjan, Mon, 4 Aug 1997 20:13:49 +0200 (MET DST)
  Appealed by Steve, Tue, 5 Aug 1997 17:39:17 +1000 (EST)
  Appealed by Harlequin, Tue, 05 Aug 1997 00:51:07
  Murphy selected to replace elJefe as Justiciar
  Appeals process begun, Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:36:34 +0100
  Murphy OVERTURNS/reverses, Tue, 05 Aug 1997 19:44:52 -0700
  Michael OVERTURNS/reverses, Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:04:33 +0100
  General Chaos defaults
  Antimatter selected as new Justice, Wed, 13 Aug 1997 10:08:07 +0100
  Antimatter OVERTURNS/reverses, Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
  Final verdict published, Fri, 15 Aug 1997 14:18:47 +0100

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

Appeal decisions

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Murphy's decision: to OVERTURN and reverse decision

I agree with Judge elJefe that the Caller's argument is incorrect.

Rule 1435 ("Indulgences exist") takes precedence over Rule 1579 ("all
Currencies must have a Mintor; any Currency ceasing to have one is
destroyed").  Even accepting CFJ 929's claim that Indulgences were
destroyed (which seems to be a conflict between those rules),
Indulgences are then resurrected with no Mintor.

I therefore consider the Statement false for lack of evidence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Michael's decision: to OVERTURN and reverse decision

Reasons and arguments:

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Antimatter's decision: to OVERTURN/reverse the decision

I vote to OVERTURN this appeal, with the comment that ordinarily I would
decline judgement, but since my fellow Justices are agreed, I might as
well go along (since I can't change things anyways).

======================================================================
Original Judgement: TRUE

Reasons and arguments:

The caller's argument appears to be incorrect:

> Therefore, the specification "the Player who is required to report
> the change in Blots" points to no particular Player, since the Rules
> charge no Player with the responsibility of keeping a record of any
> particular Payment Orders.

This is formally contradicted by Rule 1596, which state, in part "Each
Recordkeepor shall maintain a record of all Payment Orders executed
which specify the Currency of which e is the Recordkeepor..."

However, as I have argued in CFJ 929, Indulgences having ceased to be
a Currency, no POs can issue in terms of them, and so no player is
authorized to execute such POs pursuant to anything.

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

(Caller's) Arguments:

Rule 1435 goes : to gain or receive Blots is to be subject to a PO for
the same number of Indulgences, and a Player's Blots is the total
amount of such Transfers e has been ordered to effect (that are not
disputed or vacated). Thus a "change in Blots" is precisely the
executing, disputing or vacating (but unfortunately not the
satisfaction) of such a Payment Order.

Therefore, the specification "the Player who is required to report the
change in Blots" points to no particular Player, since the Rules
charge no Player with the responsibility of keeping a record of any
particular Payment Orders.

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