Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"

[Corona]

I support G.'s intent to enter the judgement into Moot. It should mostly
irrelevant though, I made sure construct & upgrade the buildings even for
the case the scam didn't work.

~Corona

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> That's a neat little trick Aris but maybe not exactly fair :)
>
> I intend to enter the below judgement into Moot, with 2 support.
>
> SUMMARY:  (especially for Corona's attention).
>
> Below, I delivered a judgement that your scam didn't work at all.  But in
> conversation, there was support for the other side of your argument (that
> the scam did work).  Unless people generally agree with my reasoning that
> the scam didn't work (under "argument for FALSE", below), the best way to
> resolve this is a Moot (i.e. vote on whether my judgement is correct).
>
> If you want to take the Moot Route, support my intent...
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Well, that's interesting. You're ineligible, but I that isn't a
> requirement
> > for using certiorari. The ruling isn't unreasonable, and comports with
> the
> > interest of the game. Intend, with both 2 support and Agoran consent, to
> > enter this judgement into moot. I object to my own intent.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:10 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh heck, if there's a time for a political power play in pursuit of the
> > > greater good, it's now.
> > >
> > > I issue a Cabinet Order of Certiorari (Arbitor) to assign the below
> case
> > > to myself.
> > >
> > > I deliver the following judgement:
> > > FALSE, based on the Caller's Arguments for FALSE.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > I CFJ on:  If the Rules say you CAN do something by paying assets,
> > > without
> > > > specifying a destination for the payment, you CAN do it by
> transferring
> > > > those assets to anyone.
> > > >
> > > > Arguments:
> > > >
> > > > Straightforward argument for TRUE:
> > > > R2166 overrides common definitions by making "pay" a synonym for
> > > transfer:
> > > > >  An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by
> > > > >  announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to
> > > > >  modification by its backing document.
> > > >
> > > > Straightforward argument for FALSE:
> > > > Payments without destination are error-trapped by this later clause
> in
> > > > R2166:
> > > > >   If a rule, proposal, or other
> > > > >  competent authority attempts to increase or decrease the
> balance
> > > > >  of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then
> the
> > > > >  currency is created or destroyed as needed.
> > > > so if "payment without destination" is a method in the rules for
> doing
> > > > something, it happens via asset destruction only (not transfer).
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"

[Kerim Aydin]

That's a neat little trick Aris but maybe not exactly fair :)

I intend to enter the below judgement into Moot, with 2 support.

SUMMARY:  (especially for Corona's attention).

Below, I delivered a judgement that your scam didn't work at all.  But in
conversation, there was support for the other side of your argument (that
the scam did work).  Unless people generally agree with my reasoning that
the scam didn't work (under "argument for FALSE", below), the best way to 
resolve this is a Moot (i.e. vote on whether my judgement is correct).

If you want to take the Moot Route, support my intent...


On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Well, that's interesting. You're ineligible, but I that isn't a requirement
> for using certiorari. The ruling isn't unreasonable, and comports with the
> interest of the game. Intend, with both 2 support and Agoran consent, to
> enter this judgement into moot. I object to my own intent.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:10 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Oh heck, if there's a time for a political power play in pursuit of the
> > greater good, it's now.
> >
> > I issue a Cabinet Order of Certiorari (Arbitor) to assign the below case
> > to myself.
> >
> > I deliver the following judgement:
> > FALSE, based on the Caller's Arguments for FALSE.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > I CFJ on:  If the Rules say you CAN do something by paying assets,
> > without
> > > specifying a destination for the payment, you CAN do it by transferring
> > > those assets to anyone.
> > >
> > > Arguments:
> > >
> > > Straightforward argument for TRUE:
> > > R2166 overrides common definitions by making "pay" a synonym for
> > transfer:
> > > >  An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by
> > > >  announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to
> > > >  modification by its backing document.
> > >
> > > Straightforward argument for FALSE:
> > > Payments without destination are error-trapped by this later clause in
> > > R2166:
> > > >   If a rule, proposal, or other
> > > >  competent authority attempts to increase or decrease the balance
> > > >  of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
> > > >  currency is created or destroyed as needed.
> > > so if "payment without destination" is a method in the rules for doing
> > > something, it happens via asset destruction only (not transfer).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"

[Aris Merchant]

Well, that's interesting. You're ineligible, but I that isn't a requirement
for using certiorari. The ruling isn't unreasonable, and comports with the
interest of the game. Intend, with both 2 support and Agoran consent, to
enter this judgement into moot. I object to my own intent.

-Aris

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:10 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Oh heck, if there's a time for a political power play in pursuit of the
> greater good, it's now.
>
> I issue a Cabinet Order of Certiorari (Arbitor) to assign the below case
> to myself.
>
> I deliver the following judgement:
> FALSE, based on the Caller's Arguments for FALSE.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I CFJ on:  If the Rules say you CAN do something by paying assets,
> without
> > specifying a destination for the payment, you CAN do it by transferring
> > those assets to anyone.
> >
> > Arguments:
> >
> > Straightforward argument for TRUE:
> > R2166 overrides common definitions by making "pay" a synonym for
> transfer:
> > >  An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by
> > >  announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to
> > >  modification by its backing document.
> >
> > Straightforward argument for FALSE:
> > Payments without destination are error-trapped by this later clause in
> > R2166:
> > >   If a rule, proposal, or other
> > >  competent authority attempts to increase or decrease the balance
> > >  of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
> > >  currency is created or destroyed as needed.
> > so if "payment without destination" is a method in the rules for doing
> > something, it happens via asset destruction only (not transfer).
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > This CFJ doen't answer the question.
> > >
> > > The question is:  If the Rule says you CAN do something by "paying"
> without
> > > specifying a destination, can you do it by paying anyone?  (the
> important
> > > thing is triggering the CAN that's tied to the action).
> > >
> > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> > > > also in the
> > > > ​"​
> > > > doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?
> > > > ​"​
> > > > thread
> > > >
> > > > ~Corona
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Ned Strange <
> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I call a CFJ with the statement "To "pay" assets is to transfer
> them to
> > > > anyone"
> > > > >
> > > > > many arguments in the recent Setting up money-printing machine
> > > > > discussion thread.
> > > > > --
> > > > > From V.J. Rada
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"

[Kerim Aydin]

Oh heck, if there's a time for a political power play in pursuit of the
greater good, it's now.

I issue a Cabinet Order of Certiorari (Arbitor) to assign the below case
to myself.

I deliver the following judgement:
FALSE, based on the Caller's Arguments for FALSE.



On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I CFJ on:  If the Rules say you CAN do something by paying assets, without
> specifying a destination for the payment, you CAN do it by transferring
> those assets to anyone.
> 
> Arguments:
> 
> Straightforward argument for TRUE:
> R2166 overrides common definitions by making "pay" a synonym for transfer:
> >  An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by
> >  announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to
> >  modification by its backing document.
> 
> Straightforward argument for FALSE:
> Payments without destination are error-trapped by this later clause in 
> R2166:
> >   If a rule, proposal, or other
> >  competent authority attempts to increase or decrease the balance
> >  of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
> >  currency is created or destroyed as needed.
> so if "payment without destination" is a method in the rules for doing
> something, it happens via asset destruction only (not transfer).
> 
> 
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: 
> > This CFJ doen't answer the question.
> > 
> > The question is:  If the Rule says you CAN do something by "paying" without
> > specifying a destination, can you do it by paying anyone?  (the important
> > thing is triggering the CAN that's tied to the action).
> > 
> > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> > > also in the
> > > ​"​
> > > doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?
> > > ​"​
> > > thread
> > > 
> > > ~Corona
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Ned Strange 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I call a CFJ with the statement "To "pay" assets is to transfer them to
> > > anyone"
> > > >
> > > > many arguments in the recent Setting up money-printing machine
> > > > discussion thread.
> > > > --
> > > > From V.J. Rada
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"

[Ned Strange]

I retract my CFJ

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I CFJ on:  If the Rules say you CAN do something by paying assets, without
> specifying a destination for the payment, you CAN do it by transferring
> those assets to anyone.
>
> Arguments:
>
> Straightforward argument for TRUE:
> R2166 overrides common definitions by making "pay" a synonym for transfer:
>>  An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by
>>  announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to
>>  modification by its backing document.
>
> Straightforward argument for FALSE:
> Payments without destination are error-trapped by this later clause in
> R2166:
>>   If a rule, proposal, or other
>>  competent authority attempts to increase or decrease the balance
>>  of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
>>  currency is created or destroyed as needed.
> so if "payment without destination" is a method in the rules for doing
> something, it happens via asset destruction only (not transfer).
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> This CFJ doen't answer the question.
>>
>> The question is:  If the Rule says you CAN do something by "paying" without
>> specifying a destination, can you do it by paying anyone?  (the important
>> thing is triggering the CAN that's tied to the action).
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
>> > also in the
>> > "
>> > doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?
>> > "
>> > thread
>> >
>> > ~Corona
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Ned Strange 
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I call a CFJ with the statement "To "pay" assets is to transfer them to
>> > anyone"
>> > >
>> > > many arguments in the recent Setting up money-printing machine
>> > > discussion thread.
>> > > --
>> > > From V.J. Rada
>> >
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"

[Kerim Aydin]

I CFJ on:  If the Rules say you CAN do something by paying assets, without
specifying a destination for the payment, you CAN do it by transferring
those assets to anyone.

Arguments:

Straightforward argument for TRUE:
R2166 overrides common definitions by making "pay" a synonym for transfer:
>  An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by
>  announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to
>  modification by its backing document.

Straightforward argument for FALSE:
Payments without destination are error-trapped by this later clause in 
R2166:
>   If a rule, proposal, or other
>  competent authority attempts to increase or decrease the balance
>  of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
>  currency is created or destroyed as needed.
so if "payment without destination" is a method in the rules for doing
something, it happens via asset destruction only (not transfer).


On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: 
> This CFJ doen't answer the question.
> 
> The question is:  If the Rule says you CAN do something by "paying" without
> specifying a destination, can you do it by paying anyone?  (the important
> thing is triggering the CAN that's tied to the action).
> 
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> > also in the
> > ​"​
> > doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination?
> > ​"​
> > thread
> > 
> > ~Corona
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Ned Strange 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I call a CFJ with the statement "To "pay" assets is to transfer them to
> > anyone"
> > >
> > > many arguments in the recent Setting up money-printing machine
> > > discussion thread.
> > > --
> > > From V.J. Rada
> >
>