Index ← 2220 CFJ 2221 2222 → text
==============================  CFJ 2221  ==============================

    Wooble caused the Reformed Bank of Agora to transfer 3 crops to em a
    moment ago.


Caller:                                 Wooble

Judge:                                  omd

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Wooble:                       13 Oct 2008 16:27:40 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        16 Oct 2008 05:49:16 GMT
omd recused:                            30 Oct 2008 08:09:05 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         02 Nov 2008 16:13:31 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     08 Nov 2008 20:40:04 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

I destroy 77 chits in my possession.

>From the RBoA Contract:
6. A person CAN, by announcement, destroy a number of Chits in eir
possession equal to the exchange rate of a currency times the Withdraw
Factor (rounded up) as long as the Bank possesses at least one of that
currency. Upon doing so one unit of that currency is transferred from
the Reformed Bank of Agora to that person.

Currency     Rate       Qty
1 crops        70        17
3 crops        70         3
8 crops        70        27

My withdraw factor is (I believe) 1.1.


Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

H. Caller Wooble,

On CFJ 2221, what's the argument?  That you didn't specify which currency?
That you didn't have 77 chits?  Or something else?


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

E didn't specify which currency (and 77 chits was only enough to give
em 1 crop, but it matched multiple exchange rates).


Judge G.'s Arguments:

First, a principle.  Without going into great detail on semantics and
theories of actions, I find that the boundaries of "specification of action"
are fairly flexible within the game.  However, within that range, I find
that if the Rules state "A player can do X in order to do Y", then "doing
X in order to Y" is a substantially different action then just "doing X"
which might happen to lead to Y.  This principle is within the bounds of
reasonable communication and the good of the game (and is not countermanded
in the rules as far as I am aware).

This distinct "X in order to Y" action exists not just in the phrase "X
in order to Y" but also in reasonable permutations that are sufficiently
direct, including "A player may X, immediately thereafter causing Y"
such as is found in the contract clause in question.  I find that a
contract clause that has two adjacent sentences specifying X->Y is
sufficiently direct to be an "X in order to Y" type of compound action.

So, if a player may "X in order to Y" by announcement, and just says
"I do X" without noting Y, what happens?  Here are three possible cases:

1.  Doing X always triggers Y, doing X without triggering Y is impossible,
and there is only one way to do Y.  In this case, it is enough to specify
"I do X" and Y follows automatically, as leaving out Y creates no

2.  There are multiple {Y}s, in other words, it is possible to:
    a.  Do X in order to Y1.
    b.  Do X in order to Y2.
    c.  Do X in order to Y3.
In this case, merely specifying "I do X" is insufficient communication and
has no effect; it is equivalent to saying "I vote 5000 without specifying
the vote value.  It is not, in particular, translated to "I do X to do all/
each of {Y1..Y3}" therefore allowing all of Y1..Y3 to happen due to one
performance of X.  Here, X is not done and none of {Y} happen.

3.  However, the third possibility is a special case of #2:
    a.  Do X in order to Y0 -> Null Y -> do X "for its own sake"
    b.  Do X in order to Y2.
    c.  Do X in order to Y3.
In this case, it is generally possible to do X "for its own sake" without
any triggering Y2…etc.  In this case, any specification "I do X" without
an explicit "in order to {Y}" will in fact cause X to happen, but we should
prima facie assume the null hypothesis, that X is done without triggering
any of {Y}.  The reason for assuming this is that it is not for the good
of the game to require players to specify all possible motives and
consequences for doing X, some of which they might not be aware of; if
they say "I do X" without a qualifier that it is for one of {Y}, then they
do X and no {Y} happens.

In this case, it is possible for Wooble to destroy 77 chits and receive no
return.  R2166 permits players to "generally" destroy assets in their
possession, and the backing document (contract) does not forbid it.
Therefore, this is possibility #3.  The fact that Wooble quoted a passage
of a contract clause and contract information which gives a multiplication/
justification for that number was not enough to specify "that currency" (the
fact that the contract clause specifies "that currency" in the latter half
of the clause makes it sufficiently reasonable to assume that a currency
is required to be indicated, even though the first part of that clause is
unclear on that fact).

Therefore Wooble destroyed the chits, but did not receive a return.  It is
possible that this was not foreseen in the contract and might be readjusted
in equity, but as an Inquiry case, FALSE.