Index ← 3114 CFJ 3115 3116 → text
==============================  CFJ 3115  ==============================

    It would be ILLEGAL for me to cash the above-quoted promise.


Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  Pavitra
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by ais523:                       23 Oct 2011 22:12:31 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra:                    24 Oct 2011 01:03:29 GMT
Judged FALSE by Pavitra:                24 Oct 2011 02:28:47 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 15:02 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ok, let's try:
> I create the following -- delimited promise and transfer it to ais523:
>    --------------------------------------------------------------------
>    I, the Herald, publish as part of my monthly report that BlogNomic
>    holds the Patent Title Loserville.
>    --------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Note: violates R2143p4 'SHALL NOT'.  To the criminal case that will
> arise: The above, when cashed on its own without this disclaimer, is
> purposefully (and knowingly) inaccurate.  I will CoE and correct.
> I ask for leniency.]


Judge Pavitra's Arguments:

      While performing weekly or monthly duties or publishing weekly
      or monthly reports, officers SHALL NOT publish information that
      is inaccurate or misleading.

      When a promise is cashed, the text of the promise is interpreted
      as if it were published by its author as a standalone statement

Cashing a promise does not in general cause the casher to take the
actions described in the promise's text. The casher is typically the
executor of any actions in the promise's text, but no rule makes it
illegal to be the executor of an illegal action.

However, there is one means by which cashing a promise may be illegal. R478:
      if that statement requires additional context, that context MUST
      be supplied within the body of the message indicating the

Does this message require additional context? It claims to be part of
the Herald's monthly report. However, there is no requirement that a
monthly report occur all in a single message.

Further, the fragment of report published via the promise is fully
capable of standing alone semantically: it does not need reference to
the rest of the report in order to be interpreted correctly. Thus, the
cashing of the promise is permitted in this respect also.

(If the report fragment had instead reported, correctly, "the set of
Patent Titles that BlogNomic holds is identical to the set of Patent
Titles that Hillary Rodham Clinton holds", then cashing the promise
would be illegal unless the casher specified in the cashing message that
Hillary Rodham Clinton holds no Patent Titles.)

In conclusion, promises are the responsibility of the author. FALSE.