Index ← 2160a CFJ 2160 2161 → text
==============================  CFJ 2160  ==============================

    The /dev/null contract has at least one party.


Caller:                                 root

Judge:                                  Machiavelli

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 2160a
Decision:                               OVERRULE/FALSE



Called by root:                         14 Sep 2008 05:58:44 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli:                20 Sep 2008 19:00:46 GMT
Machiavelli recused:                    20 Sep 2008 21:21:31 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     23 Sep 2008 08:23:59 GMT
Judged TRUE by Wooble:                  23 Sep 2008 12:37:14 GMT
Appealed by ais523:                     23 Sep 2008 13:01:00 GMT
Appealed by Wooble:                     23 Sep 2008 14:31:26 GMT
Appealed by Pavitra:                    23 Sep 2008 15:34:17 GMT
Appeal 2160a:                           23 Sep 2008 15:34:17 GMT
OVERRULED to FALSE on Appeal:           24 Sep 2008 20:37:21 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

If the /dev/null contract has no parties, then R1742 would normally
terminate it automatically.  However, contract termination is a
contract change (R2197), contract changes are secured at power 2
(R2198), and the power of R1742 is only 1.5; as a result, the
auto-termination failed.  Furthermore, if R1742 is subsequently
upmutated to power 2, the contract will not automatically terminate at
that point, per the language of R1742: "...terminates WHEN it comes to
have less than the required number of parties" (emphasis added).


Caller's Evidence:

While I'm at it, I agree to the following:

This contract is a pledge, titled "/dev/null".  The player known as
root CAN join this contract by announcement; no other person may do
so.  Parties to this contract CAN leave it by announcement, and MUST
do so immediately.

I leave the /dev/null pledge.


Judge Wooble's Arguments:

To terminate existing contracts with fewer than the required number of
parties, a proposal would need to also amend R1742 to make the
termination occur instantaneously any time a contract doesn't have the
required parties; I believe the language prior to the passage of P5663
would have been sufficient to accomplish this (using 'if' instead of
'when'), but in any case contract changes have only been secured since
13 Sept. If the Notary's most recent monthly report is accurate, the
/dev/null contract should be the only one affected by this ruling.


Appellant ais523's Arguments:

I intend to appeal the judgement of CFJ 2160 with 2 support; the judge
has judged TRUE yet eir arguments argue for FALSE (in that if /dev/null
works, it has no parties rather than 1).


Appellant Wooble's Arguments:

I support and argue for an appeals judgment of OVERRULE/FALSE assuming
the panel accepts my published reasoning.