Interesting catch.
It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
"except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as described"
part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
knowledge.
On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e has
neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the current
Agoran week."
Caller's Evidence ================= Excerpt from Rule 2555/2 ("Blots")
[Power=2]
Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
restricted to persons.
[...]
To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
[...]
If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from
emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
emself by announcement.
Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement,
subject to modification by its backing document. An indestructible
asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT be
destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
Caller's Arguments
==================
I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from emself,
then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577, the Blot
CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a proposal or rule, other
than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible
assets or that asset in particular", but rather by the Player.
I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as the
definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in Rule 2555,
but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the definition, and then later
attempts to override the definition in Rule 2577. Thus the conflict is
between two Rules, rather than within the text of a certain rule.
If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030 ("Precedence
between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher Power takes precedence.
In this case that is Rule 2577. This would mean that Blots CANNOT be destroyed.
I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
[NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I will
withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on "indestructible"
assets, and the ones that I found on Blots seemed not to be relevant. I was
unable to find precedent on conflicts with definitions solely by searching
the statements of CFJs.]
