I call this CFJ: If a person pays the (nonzero) upkeep cost for eir
Rank 1 facility and then upgrades it to Rank 2 in the same month, e must
pay the full Rank 2 upkeep cost to prevent its end-of-the-month destruction.
I call this CFJ: If a facility has an upkeep cost of 0 (i.e. null), the
owner must announce an attempt to pay 0 in a month (or otherwise publicly
note) the upkeep cost of 0 to prevent its end-of-the-month destruction.
(linked, please).
Arguments for first CFJ:
Rule 2560 (Facilities) reads in part:
If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep
costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next Agoran
month. Failing to do this destroys the facility. In the second to
last Eastman week of the Agoran Month, the Cartographor SHOULD
issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
upkeep fees on any of eir facilities.
There's a few ways of interpreting this clause:
1. At the end of the month, the facility is Rank 2 and has a Rank 2 Upkeep
cost. Has the Rank 2 Upkeep cost been paid? If not, the facility is
destroyed. (argument for TRUE).
2. At the end of the month, has e paid an appropriate upkeep cost for that
facility at any point in the month? If so, e has met the conditions, even
if the upkeep cost later changes, and the facility is not destroyed (argument
for FALSE).
3. Upkeep costs are additive - if e payed the Rank 1 fee, e can later pay
the difference after e upgrades (FALSE with different implications - I don't
think this one holds up under precedent of single payment for fees, but
including for completeness).
In interpreting, note the new Rules definition of costs/fees in EVIDENCE,
below.
Arguments for second CFJ:
Rule 2560 (Facilities) reads in part:
If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep
costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next Agoran
month. Failing to do this destroys the facility. In the second to
last Eastman week of the Agoran Month, the Cartographor SHOULD
issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
upkeep fees on any of eir facilities.
Prior to the adoption of Proposal 8055, it was unclear whether a facility
with a defined upkeep cost of 0 (as opposed to no upkeep cost) needed some
kind of announcement to prevent its destruction, but the Cartographer and
the rest of us had assumed it meant "no action necessary" (and all records
have self-ratified with this assumption).
Proposal 8055 created the power-3 "Fee-based Actions" Rule, which includes:
If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter
the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action.
and also:
If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
set of assets is the empty set, then the action can be performed by
announcement, but the announcement must include that there
is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.
This implies some kind of announcement is now necessary. However, it's far
from clear. In particular, the "associated action" for Upkeep Costs is not
a direct action, but something like paying the fee itself, or "preventing
end-of-the-month destruction" or something.
EVIDENCE (both CFJs)
Full text of Fee-based Actions (power-3):
If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter
the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action.
If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual
fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
is performing the action; the announcement must specify the
correct set of assets for the fee and indicate intent
to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
Upon such an announcement:
- If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
and the action is performed simultaneously;
- If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
performed simultaneously.
- Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
action is not performed.
If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
set of assets is the empty set, then the action can be performed by
announcement, but the announcement must include that there
is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.
