Index ← 1575 CFJ 1576 1577 → text
==============================  CFJ 1576  ==============================

    Goethe successfully played Corporate Bankruptcy on or about Oct. 31,


Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  Maud
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by G.:                           31 Oct 2005 19:01:28 GMT
Assigned to Maud:                       09 Nov 2005 15:59:00 GMT
Judged TRUE by Maud:                    17 Nov 2005 00:30:11 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

On October 31, Goethe had a corporate bankruptcy card in eir hand, and was a
shareholder.  He posted the following:
    I play Corporate Bankruptcy and pay a fee of 3 to do so.

The cardbook definition of Corporate Bankruptcy reads "Costly [3]", and that
means, according to the costly element, that there is a "fee of 3" to play
that card.  Since Goethe is a shareholder, the Limited element of the card
does not impose additional fees.

But fees, in themselves, are nowhere defined.  Are fees regulated?

In the case of cards, they are, but indirectly.  Rule 2106 states that a
gambler plays a card by "...noting any fees required to play the card".  This
is the only mention of fees in the ruleset.  The Caller suggests that that
fees are regulated by as defined in R101(b); that is, R2106 gives a condition
to be satisfied to play a card ("noting any fees).  So if a fee for a card is
noted as Goethe did, that should be sufficient to play the card.


Caller's Evidence:

Deckmastor Report of Oct 31:

> From the Cardbooks:

       * Costly [X a natural number]: There is a fee of X to play this
         card, in addition to any other fees.


       * Caption:   Corporate Bankruptcy
         Frequency: Unique
         Elements:  Limited [Shareholders] [3], Costly [3]
         Exploit:   Transfer each Stock Card not held by the deck to
                    the deck.

First paragraph of R2106:
      A gambler plays a card with an Exploit by announcement,
      specifying the card to be played, indicating any entities or
      values mentioned in an Indication of the card's Exploit, and
      noting any fees required to play the card.  A card without an
      Exploit cannot be played.

Rule 101/2

      Any player is permitted to perform an action which is not
      regulated.  An action is regulated if:

      (a) the action is prohibited;

      (b) the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied,
          then some player is permitted to perform the action;

      (c) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information
          for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor;

      (d) the action would, as part of its effect, make it impossible
          to make arbitrary modifications to the rules by any
          combinations of actions by players; or

      (e) the courts have held that the action is regulated, and this
          finding has not been overturned.

      A player besides the Speaker is always permitted to deregister
      rather than continue to play.  Please treat Agora right good


Judge Maud's Arguments:

The main question is whether noting a fee is regulated.  Rule 101
provides five individually sufficient tests for regulation.  It is
in the best interests of the game that an action be considered
unregulated unless it passes one of these tests.

The action of noting a fee does not pass the tests in 101 (a), (b),
or (d).  The action of *paying* a fee may have been held to be
regulated, but the action of *noting* a fee has not, and so the
test (e) fails.  Hence the only relevant test is (c):

      (c) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information
          for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor.

Playing a card, as part of its effect, modifies information tracked
by the Deckmastor, in particular the holder of that card.  Even though
noting a fee could be an action required to be performed in order to
play the card, it would be possible to note a fee without thereby
playing a card.  Therefore a modification of tracked information is
not part of the effect of the action of noting a fee, and test (c)
fails.  Hence the action of noting a fee is unregulated and so
by rule 101 generally permitted to be performed.  As all other
necessary conditions for playing Corporate Bankruptcy were satisfied,
Goethe successfully played the card.

I therefore enter a judgement of TRUE.