I favor Aris being assigned this case. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus [email protected]
> On Jun 28, 2017, at 10:39 PM, Aris Merchant > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:02 PM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: >> CFJ: Shinies are assets. >> >> Arguments: The recently resurrected rule 2166 says: >> >> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its >> backing document), and existing solely because its backing >> document defines its existence. >> >> The latest version of Rule 2483 (Economics) purports to define shinies >> as assets, but does it satisfy the second condition? The meaning of >> "because" here is somewhat ambiguous, but I suggest a useful test is >> whether an entity would cease to exist if, hypothetically, its backing >> document (rule) were repealed. In this case, shinies are primarily >> defined by Rule 2483, but are also explicitly mentioned in Rule 2491 >> (Estate Auctions) and Rule 2484 (Payday). For example: >> >> At the start of each month, if Agora's Balance is not 0 or less, >> Agora SHALL pay each player 10 shinies. >> >> (There are also references to “Balance” in Rules 2485 and 2487.) >> >> If Rule 2483 were repealed, it seems likely that the mentions of >> “shinies” (perhaps "Balance" as well) in those rules would still be >> interpreted as referring to game-defined objects, given the lack of >> any obvious alternative referent. That would probably be sufficient >> to establish shinies as a part of the gamestate, and (given the lack >> of any intermediate period in which they’re not defined) preserve the >> existence of shinies existing prior to the repeal. Thus shinies fail >> the test: they wouldn’t cease to exist if Rule 2483 were repealed. >> Does that mean they don’t exist “solely because” of Rule 2483, and >> hence are not assets? >> >> See also: CFJs 1922 and 2309, which addressed that clause but wrt >> assets defined by contracts, not rules. > > I have looked briefly at each of the 125ish CFJs containing the word > "asset" (as reported by cfj.qoid.us) and can find no actual > precedent, although one case does seem to be vaguely related. I have > gratuitous arguments, but I'll save them until after I find out > whether people are willing to have me judge a case about a rule that I > re-enatcted. I do point out, however, that there is some precedent for > such assignments (cf. CFJ 1910, one of the ones I just looked > through). > > -Aris
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
