Index ← 2205 CFJ 2206 2207 → text
==============================  CFJ 2206  ==============================

    I transferred at least 2 Chits to the PerlNomic Partnership today


Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by ais523:                       02 Oct 2008 19:23:51 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         09 Oct 2008 03:07:07 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     09 Oct 2008 06:46:39 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

I transfer 1 Chit to the PerlNomic Partnership.


Caller's Arguments:

This message has multiple timestamps on, from the various
servers that process messages. As a result, by rule 478, it happens more
than once.

(N.B. I don't really expect this to stick, and also it would cause a
massive recalculation of gamestate, but I'd like to see the specific
argument by which the judge manages to find FALSE.)


Judge G.'s Arguments:

FALSE.  The act of making an announcement is the whole act of sending a
message, in R478, '"A person "publishes" or "announces" something by
sending a public message.'  Here, the act of sending is a single act, so
regardless of the rest of R478 a single announcement of an action is a
single action.

Of course, the process of "sending" includes multiple steps - deciding
what to send, typing, etc.  To treat it as a platonic and instantaneous
act it is necessary to assign the legal fiction of an instant of
action, regardless of evidence of the message's passage through the
ether (the passage in most cases takes less time than said deciding,
typing, etc.)   There is nothing inconsistent in creating such a legal
fiction; what would be inconsistent would be assuming that this legal
fiction allows one to choose multiple points in the sending process
as originating multiple messages.  In fact, if we took this splitting
view, why not look at the date stamp per packet which might assemble the
"message" out of order entirely?  Or say that "the message consists of
a message sent when the first letter was typed, then a second message
when the second letter was typed", etc.  All of these quite simply
do not follow the idea that "sending a message" is a specific, single,
fully-formed communication.

By the combination of R478 and precedent, we have chosen the date-stamp
that is commonly displayed by email readers on non-full-header mode as
the prima facie date stamp of choice, and only discard that stamp if
other evidence (legally significant delays) are evident in the steps of
the transfer process.  In those cases another of the stamps might be
chosen by a judge to be more relevant, but this is still choosing a
single timestamp from among choices, not choosing all of them.