We're aloud to post judgements now? On Jan 7, 2008 12:39 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby judge CFJ 1850 FALSE, submitting as arguments my > proto-judgement verbatim. > > -root > > On Dec 31, 2007 4:44 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Initiator's Arguments: > > > > pikhq claimed to create 100 points in eir possession, then claimed to > > win on points. However, while Rule 2166 (Assets) generally allows the > > recordkeepor of an asset to create that asset, it does not explicitly > > allow em to determine the owner, nor to gain that asset, nor to award > > that asset to emself. > > > > If (e.g.) a contest defined beads as a currency, and explicitly > > allowed the contestmaster to create beads in a given entity's > > possession, then that would be backed up by Rule 2166's "subject to > > modification by its backing document" clause. However, in the case > > of points, Rule 2179 (Points) is silent on the issue. > > > > If Rule 2166 is interpreted as not allowing the Scorekeepor to > > determine the owner, then it defaults the owner to the Bank, and so > > pikhq's claimed win was unsuccessful. > > > > > > Goethe has offered the following counter-argument: > > > > Arggh! I thought I waited and had consensus here. FWIW, I think it's > > far-fetched, if one is "generally permitted" to create assets, and > > each asset has an owner, then one is "generally permitted" to create > > assets for arbitrary owners (or else one isn't generally permitted at > > all, which is self-contradictory). -G. > > > > > > I do not believe that the usage of the word "generally" here > > authorizes the recordkeepor to arbitrarily specify the parameters of > > asset creation. Rather, it appears to combine with the clause > > "subject to modification by its backing document", to indicate what > > the default authorization is where it is left unmodified. The word > > "generally" is unnecessary in this interpretation, but this does not > > mean that we should necessarily read more into its usage. > > > > As Initiator Murphy has argued, if the recordkeepor cannot generally > > select an owner for the created assets, then they would come into > > existence with no owner, from which Rule 2166 tells us that the owner > > is the Bank. So the recordkeepor is not prevented from creating > > assets by this interpretation, and I find both that this does not > > conflict with the "generally permitted" language, and that the rule is > > not self-contradictory. > > > > Additionally, I find it interesting that the authorization clause > > submits itself to arbitrary "modification" by the backing document, > > rather than to the safer possibility of simple restriction. If the > > recordkeepor were generally permitted to create assets in any manner, > > this would be unnecessary, as any mechanism that a backing document > > might reasonably define would be included in the class of restrictions > > over the general permission. Using Murphy's interpretation, however, > > "modification" is necessary in allowing recordkeepors to create assets > > in the possession of particular entities. > > > > Finally, because the sentence does allow for specialization of its > > mechanism, we should strive to interpret it as precisely as possible. > > Thus "An asset generally CAN be created by its recordkeepor by > > announcement..." should be taken to mean exactly that, with no extra > > qualifications. > > > > For all the reasons given above, I find CFJ 1850 to be FALSE. > > > > -root > > > -- -----Iammars www.jmcteague.com
