Index ← 1375 CFJ 1376 1377 → text
==============================  CFJ 1376  ==============================

    The Rules do not explicitly permit Players to transfer their own


Caller:                                 Steve

Judge:                                  OscarMeyr
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Steve:                        14 May 2002 06:45:49 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr:                  22 May 2002 01:18:04 GMT
Judged FALSE by OscarMeyr:              29 May 2002 00:34:23 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

On Thu, 9 May 2002, Ian Kelly wrote:

> I may be missing something here.  Rule 1981 reads, in part:
>       (a) A transfer of Property from one entity to another entity
>           which is made without being explicitly required or permitted
>           by the Rules is unauthorized.
>       (b) A Player who intentionally makes a valid but unauthorized
>           transfer of Property from any entity to another entity
>           commits the Class 10 Crime of Embezzlement.
> There doesn't seem to be any Rule that explicitly permits Players to
> transfer their property arbitrarily (or at least I can't find it).
> Are we all guilty of Embezzlement?


Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:

The relevant Rules are R1981 (relevant portion quoted by the Caller),
R1598, and R1478.

R1598 (b) sets forth that a valid Notice of Transfer must be sent by an
entity's Executor (including a Limited Executor), defined by R1478 (a)
and (b), with the appropriate authority to make transfers.  This
explicitly permits the Executor to make transfers of property.

R1478 (c) explicitly makes a Player eir own Executor.  R1478 (a) allows
an entity's Executor (as distinguished from a Limited Executor) to make
any and all actions the entity may carry out.  By syllogism, a Player
may make any and all actions (on eir own behalf) that the Rules permit
em to make as a Player.

Therefore for R1598, a Player has the authority to make transfers of
property on eir own behalf.  The CFJ thus reduces to a possible conflict
between R1598 and R1981.  Under R1030, the lower numbered rule takes
precedence.  Thus, R1598 explicitly permits a Player to take all
permissible actions, which under R1478 includes transfers of Property,
and this does not violate the "explicitly permitted" requirement of
R1981.  Accordingly, I return a Judgment of FALSE.


Judge OscarMeyr's Evidence:

Rule 1598 (relevant portion):

      (a) A Notice of Transfer is a message which sets forth the
          intent to transfer one or more Properties from one entity
          (the "transferor") to some other entity (the "transferee").

      (b) A valid Notice of Transfer must additionally:
          (1) specify one or more Properties all of which are owned by
              the transferor; and
          (2) be sent by the Executor of the transferor, or by a
              Limited Executor of the transferor with the authority to
              execute transfers on behalf of that entity with respect
              to all of the Properties involved.

Rule 1478, relevant portion:

      (a) An Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered by the
          Rules to act on behalf of that entity, who is called the
          Executee. There may be more than one such Player. An
          Executor of an Executee may perform on behalf of the
          Executee all such actions as the Rules permit the Executee
          to perform.

      (b) A Limited Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered
          by the Rules to perform on behalf of that entity a subset of
          the actions which the Rules permit the entity to perform. A
          Limited Executor is permitted to perform on behalf of an
          Executee only such actions as are explicitly permitted by
          the Rules.

      (c) A Player is always eir own Executor. Other entities have
          Executors (or Limited Executors) only as and when the Rules