============================== CFJ 2679 ==============================
ais523 owns a Dunce Cap card
Called by ais523: 09 Sep 2009 22:49:38 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra: 15 Sep 2009 07:33:36 GMT
Transferred from Pavitra to scshunt: 16 Sep 2009 03:10:49 GMT
Judged FALSE by scshunt: 16 Sep 2009 03:10:49 GMT
Appealed by Murphy: 16 Sep 2009 06:49:57 GMT
Appealed by Tiger: 16 Sep 2009 09:20:50 GMT
Appealed by scshunt: 16 Sep 2009 16:16:29 GMT
Appeal 2679a: 16 Sep 2009 16:16:29 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 26 Sep 2009 18:04:31 GMT
Assigned to scshunt: 26 Sep 2009 18:04:31 GMT
Judged TRUE by scshunt: 04 Oct 2009 00:46:51 GMT
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 17:41 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> ais523 is dealt the following card(s) from the deck of Justice:
Absolv-o-Matic, Drop Your Weapon, Dunce Cap
> Reason: Notary weekly salary
I transfer the Dunce Cap to the Lost and Found Department. (This works
because rule 2166:
The Lost and Found department may own any asset, and have assets
transferred to and from it, regardless of the asset's backing
document or any Rule, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
claims explicit precedence over the equally-powered Dunce Cap (rule
* Dunce Cap - (Effect) Holding this card is a Losing
Condition. The holder of this card CAN
NOT voluntarily destroy it by
announcement, and CAN NOT transfer it
unless e has held it for at least one
Judge scshunt's Arguments:
The caller argues that R2166 stipulates that the LFD can have assets
transferred to and from it regardless of any rule, and this takes
precedence over R2262, which stipulates that the holder CANNOT transfer
it unless e has held it for at least one week.
This is correct. Therefore, the question is whether the caller actually
had an appropriate means.
The caller purported to transfer eir Dunce Cap by announcement. The rule
that would authorize em to do so is R2166 again, this time with the text
"An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another entity by
announcement, subject to modification by its backing document." This
text indicates that the backing document for Dunce Cap can modify this
ability. R2262 is unambiguously the backing document for Dunce Cap, so
the rule is appropriately modified by the backing document.
It is clear that R2166 does not merely provide a general means of
transfer that defers to the backing document because it is limited when
the backing document is a rule of lower power or not a rule at all.
Therefore, given the absence of evidence, the normaly method of transfer
does not exist.
The caller has also argued that since R2166 stipulates that the LFD can
have assets "transferred to and from it, regardless of the asset's
backing document or any Rule, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding.",
and that this implies the existence of a means, and that this must make
his action by announcement valid. My initial reaction to this was that
it was not the case. Whether or not an action can be performed by
announcement in the other specified methods seems uncertain. I think it
is appropriate to say that whether naked CAN implies CAN by announcement
depends on the context, both in the specific rule and the ruleset in
general - for instance, R2164 only implies by announcement for judical
transfer (by requiring the judgment be in the same announcement as the
transfer), where R591 directly specifies no mechanism, but a requirement
that it be in the initiating announcement. By contrast, R2160 clearly
does not imply the ability to perform an action by announcement simply
by virtue of it being deputised for. In particular, by announcement
seems to be implied when there exists no other method, whereas it tends
not to be when another method exists; it merely authorizes that method.
I do not interpret R2166 as necessarily implying CAN by announcement,
given that its purpose is primarily to override rules that would prevent
transfer (specifically, to ensure a fixed asset can go to the LFD when
it is owned by an entity outside its class of holders). As the final
nail in the coffin, there does exist another method by which ais523 can
transfer Dunce Cap to the LFD - by deregistering.
Appellant Murphy's Arguments:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal. The arguments indicate that
the transfer failed, but the statement is "ais523 owns a Dunce Cap
card" which should have been judged TRUE. I recommend REASSIGN,
as coppro presumably just mis-remembered the statement as "ais523
transferred a Dunce Cap card" or something similar.
Appellant scshunt's Arguments:
I support and do so, as I misread the statement. I recommend REMAND.