Index ← 1173 CFJ 1174 1175 → text
From: 
To: agora-off 
Subject: OFF: CFJ 1174 OVERTURNED
Date: Sunday, December 05, 1999 10:20 PM



======================================================================
                              CFJ 1174

    The PO's issued by Payroll Clerk Lee in the email sent to
    agora-official time/date stamped Fri, 05 Nov 1999 16:36:15 -0600
    were improperly executed, due to the fact that e had already
    executed PO's for the same purpose in the email sent to
    agora-discussion time/date stamped Fri, 05 Nov 1999 12:15:27 -0500.

======================================================================

Called by:           Wes

Judge:               Elysion
Judgement:           TRUE
Appeals Justices:    Kolja, Lee, t
Appeals Decision:    OVERTURN

Judge selection:

Eligible:            Elysion, harvel, Kolja, Lee, Michael, Murphy,
                     Palnatoke, Peekee, t

Not eligible:
Caller:              Wes
Barred:              -
Had their turn:      Blob, Chuck, Crito
Already served:      -
Defaulted:           -
By request:          -
On Hold:             elJefe, Steve

======================================================================

History:

Called by Wes:                        05 Nov 1999 15:32:47 -0800
Assigned to Elysion:                  05 Nov 1999 15:45:10 -0800
Judged TRUE by Elysion:               09 Nov 1999 17:31:12 -0500
Judgement Distributed:                10 Nov 1999 14:34:27 -0800
Appealed by Murphy:                   23 Nov 1999 02:37:13 -0800
Appealed by Crito:                    23 Nov 1999 11:11:11 -0500
Appealed by Elysion:                  23 Nov 1999 15:36:19 -0500
Appeal Distributed:                   23 Nov 1999 23:39:43 -0800
Appeal Corrected:                     25 Nov 1999 02:11:39 -0800
Justice Lee OVERTURNS:                28 Nov 1999 21:11:46 -0600
Justice t OVERTURNS:                  02 Dec 1999 00:31:20 +0200
Justice Kolja OVERTURNS:              03 Dec 1999 20:53:24 +0100
Appeal Decision published:            As of this message

=====================================================================

Caller's Arguments:



======================================================================

Evidence attached by the Caller:

From owner-agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au  Fri Nov  5 09:15:41 1999
Return-Path: 
Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (IDENT:majordomo@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.16])
	by jumping-spider.aracnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23975
	for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:15:39 -0800
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA11663
	for agora-discussion-list; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:06:01 GMT
Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1])
	by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA11657
	for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:05:57 GMT
Received: (from mail@localhost)
	by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA07190
	for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 04:21:39 +1100 (EST)
Received: from click.schawk.com(205.184.253.12) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1)
	id xma007188; Sat, 6 Nov 99 04:21:32 +1100
Message-id: 
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 12:15:27 -0500
Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Stem Transfer
To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
From: lee@schawk.com (_lee _kinkade)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Status: RO

dalbertz@rmv.state.ma.us,Internet writes:
>H. Payroll Clerk,
>
>Acting as executor of Schneidster, I hereby cause Schneidster to transfer
>125 Stems to the Bank in order to have them converted to P-Notes.
>
>Acting as myself, I hereby transfer 150 Stems to the Bank in order to
>have them converted to +VTs.
>
>--Crito

I order the bank to pay 125 P-Notes to Schneidster.

I order the bank to pay 150 +Vts to Crito

---
lee
If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.

From owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au  Fri Nov  5 14:39:38 1999
Return-Path: 
Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (IDENT:majordomo@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.16])
	by jumping-spider.aracnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27474
	for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:39:36 -0800
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA13166
	for agora-official-list; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:27:05 GMT
Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1])
	by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA13163
	for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:27:03 GMT
Received: (from mail@localhost)
	by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id JAA07750
	for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 09:42:45 +1100 (EST)
Received: from click.schawk.com(205.184.253.12) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1)
	id xma007748; Sat, 6 Nov 99 09:42:19 +1100
Message-id: 
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 16:36:15 -0600
Subject: OFF: Re: BUS: Stem Transfer
To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
From: lee@schawk.com (_lee _kinkade)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Status: RO

dalbertz@rmv.state.ma.us,Internet writes:
>H. Payroll Clerk,
>
>Acting as executor of Schneidster, I hereby cause Schneidster to transfer
>125 Stems to the Bank in order to have them converted to P-Notes.
>
>Acting as myself, I hereby transfer 150 Stems to the Bank in order to
>have them converted to +VTs.
>
>--Crito

I order the bank to pay 125 P-Notes to Schneidster.

I order the bank to pay 150 +Vts to Crito
---
lee
If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.

======================================================================

Judge's Arguments:

Though the concept of a valid PO is only briefly treated in the
rules, common sense and game custom can be used in many cases.
Suppose Lee misordered a PO for 120 +VTs as being for 20 +VTs;
intuitively, there is something wrong with this PO. Likewise, if e
orders 2 POs for 120 +VTs each, there is also something intuitively
wrong with them. Additionally, one could consider that Lee was trying
to re-order the same POs e already had created.  Since Lee later
vacated the second POs, and I cannot see any real reason why they
wouldn't be improperly executed, I judge this statement TRUE.

======================================================================

Evidence Attached by Justices:



======================================================================

Justice Lee's Arguments:

 rule that the judgement of CFJ 1174 be overturned.  In light of the
 relevance of Rules pertaining to Administrative orders that has been
 realized since this judgement, i see no other way to rule.

======================================================================