============================== CFJ 1224 ==============================
Elysions's message of 11 April 2000, reading in part, 'The Bank pays
all its outstanding IAT POs (50 to Michael and 75 to Chuck)', did
not have the effect of executing a Transfer Order which would
satisfy the Payment Order executed by lee in eir message dated 11
March 2000, reading in part, 'I order the Bank to pay Murphy 130
Called by Kelly: 26 May 2000 21:04:33 GMT
Assigned to Sherlock: 29 May 2000 10:06:10 GMT
Sherlock recused: 08 Jun 2000 18:13:54 GMT
Assigned to Chuck: 09 Jun 2000 12:52:44 GMT
Judged TRUE by Chuck: 15 Jun 2000 16:14:15 GMT
Appealed by Wes: 15 Jun 2000 18:03:41 GMT
Appealed by Crito: 15 Jun 2000 18:06:44 GMT
Appealed by Steve: 16 Jun 2000 00:10:34 GMT
Appeal 1224a: 16 Jun 2000 00:10:34 GMT
REVERSED on Appeal: 23 Jun 2000 12:56:48 GMT
Payroll Clerk lee's message was delayed two and a half months by a
malfunction in the mail server which services one of the Public Fora.
As a result, this message, while sent on March 11, was not generally
received by the Players until May 23. Elysion, however, has claimed
that eir message, dated April 11, a month and a half before any Player
other than lee was aware of this Order, had the effect of executing a
Transfer Order for a Payment Order of which e had no knowledge. If
Elsyion is correct, e is claiming to have executed a Transfer Order
without knowing that e had done so, and in fact did not realize that e
had done so until some time after May 23, when lee's Payment Order was
distributed to the Players. Elysion's message parenthetically listed
the POs to be paid; there is no mention of lee's PO to be paid to
Murphy. It seems clear that Elysion had no intention that eir message
was intended to satisfy this wayward Payment Order.
It stretches credibility to the extreme to believe that this
constitutes a Transfer Order as required by Rule 1598. A Transfer
Order must specify a source entity, a destination entity, a Currency,
and some number of units. While it has been held that these can be
specified implicitly, this situation takes "implicitly" too far. At
the time this message was sent, the only person who was even possibly
aware that this Order existed was lee, and I suspect that even lee had
forgotten about it. If this message specifies a Transfer Order with
deferred specification, then it should also be legal for a Player to
state "I execute a Transfer Order, for an amount of Currency to be
named later, to an entity to be named later" and then name the amount
and payee at some future time. I do not think that anyone will accept
this as a valid specification of a Transfer Order -- and neither
should we accept Elysion's specification as a valid specification of a
Transfer Order, either.
I request that this CFJ be known as the "Case of the Wayward Payment
Judge Chuck's Arguments:
In discussions on this issue, both Kelly and Elysion make the assumption
that the Payment Order in question cam into existence when it was sent.
However, this assumption is worth questioning.
Rule 1793 states, "An Order is a command, executed by a Player..."
That is, a collection of text which could potentially be an Order
must be "executed" for it to actually be an Order. A command which
is not executed is not an Order.
What does it mean for a command to be executed? The term is not defined
in the Rules. Where there is a significant delay between the time the
command is sent, and the time when it is received, at which time was
the command executed? The Rules provide no guidance on this issue, nor
does the m-w.com definition of "execute," which defines it as "to
carry out fully : put completely into effect." Even with this
definition of "execute", a case for either interpretation could be
I find that it is not in the best interests of the game to require
a Player to abide by a command which e has not received. A command
is not "executed" if it has not been received by the Player required
to abide by it. Thus, the command for the Bank to pay Murphy 130 IATs
did not become a Payment Order until it was received by the Bank's
Executor on May 23.
Since the Payment Order did not exist as such on April 11, Elysion's
message of that date that the Bank paid its outstanding IAT POs
naturally did not satisfy that Payment Order. I find the statement
to be TRUE.
On an additional note, I would remind readers that the principle
that a Player can not be required to abide by an Order which e
has not received is based on the best interests of the game, and
thus applies *only* when the Rules are unclear. Note that Rule
1793 also provides that when the holder of an Office changes,
and an unfulfilled Order is directed at that Office, the responsibility
to abide by that Order attaches to the new holder of the Office.
One might imagine a case where an Order is delivered privately
to the holder of an Office, and is received by em (thus the Order
is already properly executed), and then the Officer changes, with
the new Officer being unaware of the Order. In this case, R1793
is quite clear that the responsibility dicated by the Order transfers
to the new Officer. Although it may be highly undesirable that
the Officer is required to abide by an Order of which e is unaware,
R1793 is quite clear on the matter, and thus my argument from
the best interests of the game cannot be applied in such a case.