I vaguely seem to recall that there is precedent that payments for something fail entirely if it's impossible for them to achieve that something.


On Thu, 30 May 2019, James Cook wrote:

On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:34, Rance Bedwell <rance...@yahoo.com> wrote:
 I make a COE for this Treasuror's report.  I posted two public messages 
announcing that I paid 2 coins to Agora.  If I had been wise I would have made 
the second one conditional upon the first not succeeding.  I was not wise, so I 
think I should only have 56 coins.

CFJ: Rance paid 2 Coins to Agora twice on 2019-05-20. Arguments to follow.

I respond to Rance's above CoE by citing the CFJ

I believe this is FALSE.

Rance's second email said "I apologize if this message comes through
as a duplicate.", which makes it clear that the first part of that
email is a retransmission of the same message, not a new, independent
message. I think CFJs 1451 [0] and 1452 [1] are relevant here: in each
of those cases, a player sent a single message across multiple emails.
The only difference here is that the emails are redundent (repeating
the same content) rather than splitting the content across multiple

Nothing in Rule 478 says that every email constitutes a message. The
fora are a way to send public messages, but I believe we should use
common sense (R217) in determining what messages the players sent.

[0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1451
[1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1452

Reply via email to