Interesting that I judged 3592 more recently than 83 or 84 but it's not
recorded anywhere.

--
Trigon

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 10:16 D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:

> COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report)
>
> Date of last report: 20 Jan 2019
> Date of this report: 29 Jan 2019
>
> Disclaimer:  Informational only. No actions are contained in this report.
>            Information in this report is not self-ratifying.
>
>
> Open cases (CFJs)
> -----------------
>
> 3695 called 15 January 2019 by twg, assigned 16 January 2019 to G.:
> "Tenhigitsune has fulfilled eir obligation, detailed in the rule
> entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to the resolver the
> amount of Energy [e wishes] to spend" in Space Battle 0001."
>
> 3696 called 15 January 2019 by twg, assigned 16 January 2019 to G.:
> "D. Margaux has fulfilled eir obligation, detailed in the rule
> entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to the resolver the
> amount of Energy [e wishes] to spend" in Space Battle 0001."
>
> 3697 called 20 January 2019 by D. Margaux, currently unassigned: "D.
> Margaux won the game by politics in this message."
>
> 3698 called 22 January 2019 by D. Margaux, currently unassigned: "D.
> Margaux committed at least 1,000,000,000 rule violations."
>
> 3699 called 29 January 2019 by Telnaior, assigned 29 January 2019 to
> Trigon: "A Spaceship owned by the Lost and Found Department is in Sector
> 05."
>
> Highest numbered case: 3699
>
> Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report.
>
>
> Recently-delivered verdicts and implications
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
> Day Court Judge         Recent
> ------------------------------
> D. Margaux             3685, 3686, 3690*, 3691*, 3694
>                      [11/2 11/2 12/25 12/25 01/20]
>
> G.                     3679, 3680, 3688, 3691, 3695, 3696
>                      [11/2 11/2 11/11 12/2 01/16 01/16]
>
> Murphy                 3682, 3678, 3687, 3689
>                      [11/1 11/4 11/10 11/14]
>
> Trigon                 3683, 3684, 3699
>                      [11/1 11/1 01/29]
>
> Weekend Court Judge     Recent     (generally gets half as many cases)
> ------------------------------
> ATMunn                 3690
>                      [12/2]
>
> * Indicates that the CFJ was reassigned to this judge.
>
> (These are informal designations. Requests to join/leave a given court
> will be noted. Individual requests to be assigned a specific case will
> generally be honored, even for non-court judges.)
>
>
> Context/arguments/evidence
> --------------------------
>
>
> ********************* CFJ 3695 and CFJ 3696
>
> ***3695 & 3696 Background message from twg:
>
> I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau
> Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is
> a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include
> "quang" and "spaaace".)
>
> Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to
>
> ***3695 & 3696 response by ais523
>
> I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for
>
> "nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk".
> (It's not a very commonly used word, after all!)
>
> And as a followup, the most relevant of the many nkep precedents
> appears to be CFJ 2625 (which is almost exactly this situation,
> attempting to act on behalf of another player using a word that has not
> been publicly defined). I disagree with the outcome of that case (as
> you can see from the arguments), and I'm not sure it gives us any
> guidance for sorting out this situation anyway (as unlike in CFJ 2625,
> there's no reason to suppose that the player in question knows the
> meaning of the word, nor that they are paying enough attention to the
> game to object to an attempt to use it incorrectly).
>
>
>
> ***3695 & 3696 arguement from D. Margaux:
>
> I have no idea how this resolves.
>
> One reason this might not work is that the rule requires Tenhigitsune
> to “communicate” eir choice, and Rule 2466 prohibits you from acting
> on behalf of em to send a “message” (or synonymously, to “publish”
> something). The only thing you can do is take the underlying game
> action on eir behalf—but here there seems to be no action separate
> from the very act of sending a message (i.e., “communicat[ing]”).
>
> ***3695 & 3696 response by twg to D. Margaux:
>
> I see your Rule 2466/1 and raise you CFJ 3649.
>
> -twg
>
>
>
>
> ***3695 & 3696 response by twg to ais523:
>
> Actually, I don't think this is the same scenario. twgese is just a
> mechanism for ensuring that the value of the number Tenhigitsune has
> announced is unknown to D. Margaux; the nature of the action that is
> being taken is perfectly cromulent to everybody. (Unless it fails for
> another reason.)
>
> -twg
>
>
>
> ***3695 & 3696 arguement from G. responding to twg:
>
>
> There's a fairly established set of decisions that says public
> communication
> has to be intelligible to "a typical Agoran" and not just a single Agoran -
> that's the AGAINT precedents, arguably more famous than nkep.
>
> History of AGAINT:  Someone privately communicated with the Assessor
> ahead of voting to say "when I vote AGAINT, it's a vote FOR."  Everyone
> not in the know assumed it was a typo and a clear vote AGAINST.  Result:
> using a private language/code doesn't work, it either fails entirely or
> has the assumed typo meaning (depending on context).
>
>
>  ***3695 & 3696 response by D. Margaux:
>
> Here’s a thought experiment to sharpen the point.
>
> Imagine that I don’t know any Spanish at all, but I’ve been told that
> “uno” is a number in that language (but not which number it is).  I
> then give the message, “I spend uno energy.” If twg speaks Spanish and
> knows that word, then have I communicated to him a choice of energy
> expenditure here? I think yes: the communicative content of the
> message does not depend on my internal mental state, but instead upon
> the signs that I am transmitting in broader social context, which is
> one where “uno” definitely means “one” (even if I don’t know that
> myself).
>
> Or what if I am told that -e^(i * pi) is a positive integer, but don’t
> know which one it is and refuse to google it. Do I communicate a valid
> choice if I tell twg that I choose -e^(i * pi)?
>
> If “rau” signifies a number in a legitimate language that twg
> understands (twgese), then my election of rau+1 should work in the
> same way as “uno” and “e^(i * pi)” do in the above hypotheticals.
> However, I think that “rau” actually doesn’t signify a number in any
> language (because private languages are impossible), and so twg didn’t
> actually communicate a number when e sent eir message and my election
> of rau+1 also doesn’t work.
>
> > On Jan 15, 2019, at 6:16 PM, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, at the time you posted the quoted message, "rau" meant "a
> pigeon
> >> or dove", so your statement is clearly incorrect. twgese is, after all,
> an
> >> evolving language - the meanings of words change all the time.
> >
> > I apologize, I should have been more precise.
> >
> > I spend rau + 1 energy, but I use the word “rau” in this context in an
> > anachronistic sense to mean what “rau” meant in twgese at the time you
> sent
> > your first message with the word “rau.”  Hope this clarifies things. :-)
> >
> >> Also, I think your attempt to announce the Energy you will spend fails,
> >> because I have no idea what you thought "rau" meant, so your message
> did not
> >> communicate that information to me.
> >
> > I don’t think this is quite right. You can never know precisely what I
> think
> > anything means, because you can’t perceive directly into my mind.
> > Accordingly, it cannot be a precondition to successful communication
> that you
> > must know my private mental meanings if any (because that could never be
> > satisfied). Instead, what you can perceive are the signs and symbols
> that I
> > convey to you; and those signs and symbols are imbued with meaning by
> their
> > history of usage by a community of language speakers/writers. So you
> don’t
> > need to know what (if anything) I “thought rau meant” in my mind;
> instead,
> > all that is required for successful communication is that you  evaluate
> the
> > meaning of the signs and symbols I convey to you in their full social
> context.
> >
> > Here, evidently, rau is a twgese word that had a particular meaning that
> you
> > yourself know at the time you first used it. So that’s what I’ve
> communicated
> > to you in my message. :-)
> >
> > [[As a more serious aside, I think the logic I’m laying out in this
> email is
> > essentially the reason why the later Wittgenstein demonstrated that
> private
> > languages such as twgese are impossible. So actually “rau” has no
> meaning in
> > either of our emails. But it’s been a long time since I had to think
> about
> > Wittgenstein, so I may have garbled the logic of it.]]
>
>
>
>
> *** 3695 & 3696 proto-judgement from G.:
>
> The exact CFJ statement does not extend the quote far enough.  The full
> text is:
>
>  >             SHALL each once communicate to the resolver the amount
>  >  of Energy they wish to spend in the battle, via any method that
>  >  cannot be understood by the other combatant until e has also
>  >  fulfilled this obligation.
>
> The "via any method that cannot be understood" is part of the SHALL
> requirement.  So the requirement is fulfilled when a combatant communicates
> to the resolver, without being understood by the other combatant.
>
> Now, to communicate is to be understood; that is, common use of the term
> includes the notion that information is successfully imparted, and if
> understanding is not actually received, communication did not occur
> (example
> use: "what we have here, is a failure to communicate.")
>
> So:  the combatant must be understood by the resolver, without being
> understood by the other combatant.
>
> No one can ever be sure that anyone else truly "understands" something, but
> we can use the standard of what a "typical current Agoran" might
> understand.
> So the communication must be made via a method that a typical Agoran would
> understand, but a different typical Agoran wouldn't understand.
>
> Clearly, this is impossible if the method uses public information for all
> communication on the matter.  To use the "typical" Agoran as a standard is
> to assume that both parties, given the same public information, would come
> to the same understanding.  If a hash (or "secret language") is used, then
> when the hash is first published, neither party understands/has been
> communicated to.  When the translation is published, both parties
> understand.  There is never a time when one of the typical Agorans
> understands, but not the other.
>
> Of course, if one of the Agorans is possessed of private information (e.g.
> a
> code arranged with the resolver ahead of time, that e understands), this is
> trivial to arrange, as it becomes "a typical Agoran with information X
> understands X, something that a typical Agoran without information X
> doesn't
> understand".  Which makes perfect sense.
>
> But under the assumption that the method of communication is entirely
> conducted in public, FALSE: these conditions are never met.
>
> ***3695 & 3696 response by twg to proto-judgement:
>
> On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 12:48 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
> > Of course, if one of the Agorans is possessed of private information
> (e.g. a
> > code arranged with the resolver ahead of time, that e understands), this
> is
> > trivial to arrange, as it becomes "a typical Agoran with information X
> > understands X, something that a typical Agoran without information X
> doesn't
> > understand". Which makes perfect sense.
>
> Hold on, isn't that exactly what happened here? "rau" is effectively
> (if we strip away all the fluff about constructed languages, which was
> a fun excuse but isn't really relevant) a secret code devised for
> communication between the resolver (me) and the person who first used
> it in a public message (coincidentally, also me).
>
> If the original attempt failed at all, I would have expected it to be
> because of R2466's prohibition of sending-messages-on-behalf. I
> realise that contradicts CFJ 3649 but to be honest I'm not 100%
> certain, in hindsight, that that judgement was correct anyway.
>
> *** 3695 & 3696 response by G. to D. Margaux:
>
> On 1/16/2019 5:37 AM, D. Margaux wrote:>
>  >> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:
>  >> If the original attempt failed at all, I would have expected it to be
>  >> because of R2466's prohibition of sending-messages-on-behalf. I realise
>  >> that contradicts CFJ 3649 but to be honest I'm not 100% certain, in
>  >> hindsight, that that judgement was correct anyway.
>  >
>  > I agree that CFJ 3649 is poorly reasoned and probably shouldn’t be
>  > followed. It’s not obvious that the judge of that CFJ knew of the
>  > prohibition against sending messages when “acting on behalf.”
>
> I remember disagreeing with 3649 it at the time, can't remember if I
> attempted to file a Motion or just discussed it a bit and let it pass.  In
> any case, here's my take on Tenhigitsune's case (proto-judgement):
>
> tl;dr you can't "communicate to" someone on behalf of a zombie because you
> can't send messages on their behalf.
>
> In general, in Agora, we abstract a lot of things (real currencies become
> virtual currencies, etc.)  However, we are grounded in some baseline
> realities.  Of course, some of those "realities", such as whether free will
> exists, are deep philosophical questions - over time, Agora has built up
> some precedents around those.
>
> One such precedent is in CFJ 1895 (a discussion of free will and
> Aristotelian causality).  This found that a "baseline axiom" in Agora is
> that the game is played by discrete, identifiable agents of free will -
> i.e. "natural persons".  The assumption is that "personhood" is absolute -
> you can create a legal construct that accepts one person's actions on
> behalf of another, but the agent never "becomes" the other person.
>
> This fundamental assumption extents to the concept of "knowledge".  Because
> each person's knowledge is fundamentally independent, an actor cannot "pass
> on a principal's knowledge" (i.e. "communicate to") a third party.  Again,
> we could put in Rules-language to create a legal fiction that allows it,
> but such communication cannot happen naturally.
>
> Currently, the R2466 explicitly forbids the legal fiction that an actor can
> act on behalf of a principal to "send a message".  While the context of
> "send a message" is generally "send an email", in this case it should be
> taken colloquially and broadly - one can "send a message" in a variety of
> ways.  So in the broader context, "sending a message" is simply to
> "communicate" to someone, whether via email, in-person, or a horse's head
> in someone's bed.
>
> So an actor cannot communicate with anyone on-behalf-of a principal.  In
> R2466 this is explicit, but even without the prohibition in R2466, it is
> impossible:  as per CFJ 1895 "Every assumed act of free will can be traced
> to a particular person's desire.  Thus, as final cause and intention, this
> intention, and free will is, also non-transferable, in the most fundamental
> sense."  The "act of communicating" is fundamentally an act of free will,
> an act traceable to a particular person's desire. And that person is the
> actor, not the principal[*].
>
> The Rule "Space Battles" states that a certain action is accomplished by
> communicating to another party - the communication is the action.  The Rule
> is Power-1.  R2466 is power-3, so this trumps any ability that might be
> implied in lower-powered rules, and as discussed above, there's no
> "natural" ability for an actor to communicate on behalf of a principal[**].
> Therefore, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another to communicate the
> required information.
>
> [*] This is specific to cases where the actor "originated" the original
> thought (i.e. the origin of the message was the actor's free will, not the
> principal's).  For example, if the Principal (of eir own accord) sends a
> message to a private party, and the private party forwards the message to a
> forum, it's possible to find that the Principal communicated with the forum
> "via the private party".  But this is only true if the Principal, as an
> agent of free will, originated the content of the message.
>
> [**] This discussion of what may happen "naturally" is necessary because
> it's physically impossible to block two free agents from communicating: a
> rule that says "two people CANNOT communicate about X" would have no
> meaning when the two people actually did so, which is why we use SHALL NOT
> to control acts of communication between free agents.  So if R2466 were
> purporting to invalidate communications between free agents, it would fail
> due to physical reality.
>
> *** 3695 & 3696 further response by G. to D. Margaux:
>
> On 1/15/2019 4:05 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>  >>> I CFJ, barring D. Margaux: "D. Margaux has fulfilled eir obligation,
>  >>> detailed in the rule entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to
>  >>> the resolver the amount of Energy [e wishes] to spend" in Space Battle
>  >>> 0001."
>
> I think this is a very different situation then the zombie one, and there's
> a strong case to be made for TRUE.  So starting a different thread here.
>
> Let's say D. Margaux and twg had the following private conversation:
>
> twg:  I've picked a secret number - I'll call it tau.  Here's a hash so
> you know that I've chosen what tau is ahead of time.
>
> D. Margaux:  Sure, I'll bite:  I wish to spend tau+1.
>
> twg:  Right, I now know exactly how much you wish to spend.
>
> Then when twg later publishes both sides, e reveals the hash contents, and
> tau has a reasonable, appropriate value.
>
> Now there's two ways to adjudicate this:
> 1.  "communicate to the resolver the amount of Energy" must be judged
> strictly with all the onus of communication on the combatant.  That is, D.
> Margaux's messages alone must contain sufficient information to communicate
> a value to any typical Agoran observer privy to D. Margaux's messages (but
> not privy to the contents of the hash).  This would result in false.
>
> 2.  "communicate to the resolver [twg]" can include context known to twg.
> Here, D. Margaux of eir own free will communicated sufficient information
> to
> twg for the value to be determined by the resolver.  While risky on D.
> Margaux's part, it was eir risk to take, of eir own free will.  This would
> result in true.
>
> In general, for private conversations, we've tended to lean towards #2:
> allowing lingo and context to evolve, or allowing private contracts /
> communications to work.  That allows for more flexible, enjoyable gameplay
> (where "clever arrangements" are part of that).  The downside is, if done
> in
> an official context (not a contract), it puts some onus on the Resolver to
> privately decide if weird communication attempts qualify (if e publicly
> reveals the two combatant's values, and one turns out to be invalidly
> submitted, e's revealed the other combatant's value too early and has
> broken
> the rules).  This might be especially onerous/unfair if the duty falls to
> "the non-combatant who has least recently registered".
>
> If we find in favor of #2, there's a secondary question: whether we take
> twg's word that e had set a definition for tau ahead of time, so that D.
> Margaux's 'tau+1' communication uniquely defined a value when it was made.
> So it's basically a "what standard of evidence do we accept?" case rather
> than a "what constitutes communication".
>
> That's worth thinking about, but first I was curious at other people's
> thoughts between #1 and #2.
>
>
> ********************* CFJ 3698 and CFJ 3699
>
> ***3698 & 3699 scam context from D. Margaux:
>
> In this message, I use the following abbreviations for political parties:
>
> COS - Costume Conservatives
> PLA - Platonic Isolationists
> NPR - New Punchbowl Reformers
> SUL - Substance Use Liberals
> MLP - Official Raving Monster Looney Party
>
> Pursuant to Rule 2542, as Arbitor, I award myself 1,000,000,000 favours in
> COS.
>
> I spend 12,000,000 Costume Conservative favours to purchase 4,000,000
> favours
> in PLA.
>
> I spend 12,000,000 Costume Conservative favours to purchase 4,000,000
> favours
> in NPR.
>
> I spend 12,000,000 Costume Conservative favours to purchase 4,000,000
> favours
> in SUL.
>
> I spend 12,000,000 Costume Conservative favours to purchase 4,000,000
> favours
> in MLP.
>
> I hereby spend favours to purchase influence over the corresponding
> politician,
> as specified in the table below:
>
> Name                      Favours Spent         Echelon Influence
> Purchased
> ------------------------- -------------------   -------
> -------------------
> Alexander the Mediocre    100,000 NPR Favours   RR      200,000
> Hillary Rodham Clinton    100,000 NPR Favours   Row     150,000
> Jim "Banana Jim" Bennett  100,000 NPR Favours   RR      200,000
> Zeno of Citium            100,000 NPR Favours   Row     150,000
>
> Benjamin Surreali         100,000 MLP Favours   Row     150,000
> Lex Luthor                100,000 MLP Favours   Row     150,000
> Napoleon Blownapart       100,000 MLP Favours   RR      200,000
> Zeno of Elea              100,000 MLP Favours   RR      200,000
>
> Kim Ping Pong              99,999 PLA Favours   Power    66,666
> Loseston Churchvalley     100,000 PLA Favours   Upper   100,000
> Politician McP[1]         100,000 PLA Favours   Upper   100,000
> Xi Kingpin                100,000 PLA Favours   Row     100,000
>
> The Princess of Andorra   100,000 SUL Favours   RR      200,000
> Theresa Cannot            100,000 SUL Favours   RR      200,000
> The Wicked Witch OTW[2]   100,000 SUL Favours   Row     150,000
> Eric                      100,000 SUL Favours   Row     150,000
>
> Ronald Ray-Gun            100,000 COS Favours   Upper   100,000
> The Fall Guy              100,000 COS Favours   RR      200,000
> Genghis Khaaaaaan         100,000 COS Favours   Upper   100,000
> John Carter               100,000 COS Favours   RR      200,000
>
> [1] Politician McPoliticianface
> [2] The Wicked Witch of the West
>
>
> I announce that I advise the politicians reflected in the table below:
>
>    Post         Politician
>    ---------    ---------------------------
>    Host         Kim Ping Pong
>    Planner      Genghis Khaaaaaan
>    Enforcer     Ronald Ray-Gun
>    Organizer    Politician McPoliticianface
>    Creep        Loseston Churchvalley
>    Schmoozer    Hillary Rodham Clinton
>    Decorator    Zeno of Citium
>    Loner        Eric
>    Drunk        Lex Luthor
>    Mystery      Xi Kingpin
>    Wild One     The Wicked Witch of the West
>    Hat Rack     Benjamin Surreali
>
>
> ***3698 caller D. Margaux's message and arguements:
>
> I have 25 balloons.  I hereby spend 24 balloons to win the game.
>
> I point my finger at myself for giving out favours in violation of the
> rules
> and I throw myself on the mercy of the court.
>
> I CFJ: “D. Margaux won the game by politics in this message.”
>
> ***3698 & 3699 response by Aris:
>
> Winning by flagrant rule violations is generally thought to be uncouth. I’m
> not sure the Agoran public will be inclined to let you keep the win. I
> would also like to point out that, technically, each favor gained may be a
> seperate rule violation, depending on how exactly the relevant provisions
> are written. The penalties incurred could be quite substantial.
>
> I intend to impeach the Arbitor with 2 Agoran Consent.
>
> -Aris
>
> ***3698 & 3699 email chain & 3699 caller D. Margaux's message:
>
> I didn’t plan to abuse any of the other powers of Arbitor, but this could
> solve
> that concern:
>
> I CFJ barring Aris: “D. Margaux committed at least 1,000,000,000 rule
> violations.”
>
> I authorize twg to act on my behalf to assign this CFJ to any player other
> than
> emself, and thereafter to act on my behalf to exercise any other lawful
> powers
> of the Arbitor in relation to this CFJ.
>
> (I think this works under the Corona-coin-gift precedent, if twg agrees.)
>
> > On Jan 22, 2019, at 6:19 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:
> >
> > I don't even know where to start figuring this out, so it would be good
> to
> > CFJ "D. Margaux has committed at least 1,000,000,000 rule violations",
> but we
> > need some way to get it assigned without D. Margaux interfering via eir
> > position as Arbitor (the earliest e can be impeached is Friday).
> >
> > Any ideas? A Cabinet Order of Certiorari would work, but only if ATMunn
> wants
> > to judge it emself.
> >
> > -twg
> >
> >
> > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> >> On Monday, January 21, 2019 5:43 AM, Aris Merchant
> >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> In any case, I think it's clear that e must be given the maximum
> >> possible sentence. After all "The fine SHOULD be increased to the
> >> degree that the violation is willful, profitable, egregious, or an
> >> abuse of an official position.", and this is all of the above.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:25 PM Aris Merchant
> >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Unfortunately, I think the common definition makes it rather clear
> what’s
> >>> going on. It’s definitely 1,000,000,000 actions, according to CFJ
> 3597, but
> >>> I think that CFJ may also suggest that we can only levy one fine (I’m
> not
> >>> sure about that though).
> >>> -Aris
> >>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:17 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, please say I can levy 1,000,000,000 fines. That would be awesome.
> >>>> ...Maybe not for D. Margaux. :/
> >>>> Incidentally, I just did a brief ruleset skim for something that
> might
> >>>> indicate whether this was 1 action or 1,000,000,000, and uncovered a
> >>>> different issue: I can't find any definition of "award" for assets.
> The
> >>>> official verb in R2577 is "grant". Are we sure that "awarding"
> favours
> >>>> actually does anything at all?
> >>>> -twg
>
>
> ********************* CFJ 3699
>
> ***3699 caller Trigon's message & context:
>
> The problem there is that it's Rule 2576 itself that specifies the asset's
> destruction if it leaves the hands of the specified class, should a class
> have been specified (which, for spaceships, it has). If that's seen to
> contradict the clause that the Lost and Found Department can own anything,
> then No Cretans Need Apply says that it can indeed own anything. Then
> again, that contradiction might not invalidate the part where the asset
> gets destroyed anyway.
>
> Eh, what the heck, it's free.
>
> I CFJ barring D. Margaux "A Spaceship owned by the Lost and Found
> Department is in Sector 05". This basically comes down to whether or not
> the Spaceship in question was destroyed upon transfer to the Lost and Found
> Department when I was deregistered by FAGE. (I'm guessing the spaceship
> from zombie-me was self-ratified out of existence by now regardless, which
> simplifies things a little)
>
>
> On 2019-01-30 03:44, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> Are you sure? The Spaceship I possessed as a zombie was deemed to have
> been
> destroyed the moment it entered the L&F office upon my deregistration two
> weeks
> ago.
> Under Rule 2576 (power=3), “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
> Lost and
> Found Department can own assets of every type.” I think that trumps any
> other
> rule that would purport to limit ownership of spaceships to players.
>

Reply via email to