Index ← 3137 CFJ 3138 3139 → text
==============================  CFJ 3138  ==============================

    A Promise titled "I want blood!" exists.


Caller:                                 Pavitra

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Pavitra:                      28 Dec 2011 06:58:12 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         14 Jan 2012 20:15:51 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     16 Jan 2012 05:14:35 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Does the Holiday extend the period for collecting Objections?
I think it doesn't, because 1728(a) is worded in terms of relative
durations measured backward from the time of the attempted resolution,
rather than forward from the time of initiation.


Caller's Evidence:

On 12/27/2011 04:51 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> Having received no objections, I do so.
> On 12/20/2011 04:23 PM, Pavitra wrote:
>> For each Promise quoted below, I intend without objection to destroy
>> that Promise.
>>> Quantity: 2
>>> Title: I want blood!
>>> Author: scshunt
>>> Owner: Tree
>>> Cashing:
>>> A proposal has been adopted which imposes a penalty or makes it
>>> illegal for players to fail to vote on a distribution since the
>>> publication of this promise, and the cashier was its author.
>>> Text: I transfer 5 points to the cashier.
>>> Title: Vote Issue Series G1
>>> Author: G.
>>> Owner: Tree
>>> Copies: 5
>>> Cashing:
>>> The casher of this promise transfers 3 points to G. in the message in
>>> which e cashes this promise.
>>> Text:
>>> I vote X on Y, where Y is a decision currently in its voting period,
>>> and X is a valid option for said decision, and both X and Y are
>>> specified in the context sent with this message.
>>> Title: G1 vote guarantee
>>> Author: G.
>>> Owner: Tree
>>> Copies: 5
>>> Cashing:
>>> The casher of this message had previously cashed a promise of Vote Issue
>>> Series G1, and G. emself (outside the cashing of another promise)
>>> changed eir vote on the specified decision, and the casher has not
>>> cashed a different G1 Vote guarantee for that decision.
>>> Text: I transfer 6 points to the casher of this promise.
>>> Title: (2011-04-25 scshunt 2)
>>> Author: scshunt
>>> Owner: Tree
>>> Cashing:
>>> The entity cashing this promise, in the same message as e cashes it,
>>> transfers me 10 points and either transfers me an additional 30 points
>>> and destroys this promise, or else transfers it to the Tree.
>>> Destruction: This promise is not destroyed upon cashing.
>>> Text:
>>> Let N be the number of the specified proposal.
>>> I retract any votes on the Proposal N and vote to ENDORSE the player
>>> cashing this promise.


Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

A scam, based on the holiday timing of dependent actions using a
similar version of R1728 wording, was sorted out by CFJ 2321, which
may or may not contain relevant arguments.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

An announcement of intent to perform an action creates a time limit for
performing that action based on that intent.  While this is written
backwards in R1728/32, this phrase in Rule 1769/8 is the relevant one:

     If some Rule bases the time of a future event (including the
     time limit to perform an action) upon the time of another event...

Here, the backwards writing doesn't matter: R1728 bases a future time
limit on the past event, it doesn't "base" the past event on the future
event (the only way to do this would be if the future event legally
moved the past event's time; this was what was rejected in CFJ 2321).

Therefore, if an intent is announced *within* a holiday, it is governed
by clause (a) of R1728, and the timing is treated as if the intent (the
"other" event) was announced at the end of the holiday - and therefore
the intent CAN only be resolved between 4-14 days after the holiday
ends.  Note that this clause is read to come before the operation of
clause (b), below.

Now, if the intent is announced *before* the holiday, but the relevant
time limits would fall within the holiday, clause (b) is relevant, and
things get confusing.   Does "time limit to perform an action" refer to
both the time at which one can first perform the action (4 days later)
as well as the final time limit for performing the action (14 days

First, the final time limit (14 days) is clearly moved if it falls
within the holiday.  After that time, the action can't be performed,
so it's a true "time limit for performing the action."  Therefore this
final time limit (if it falls within the holiday) is moved to 72 hours
after the holiday.

What about the 4-day time limit, before which the action cannot be
performed?  Well, it's the time limit for inaction, not the time limit
for action - there exist times after the 4 days at which the action
can be performed.  As such, I find that it is *not* covered by either
clause (a) or (b), and the timing is not affected.  The result is that
the announcer can resolve the intent any time between 4 days after
announcing and 72 hours after the holiday ends.

This permissiveness gives latitude to the officer/person performing the
action, so is generally in keeping with the holiday rule helping these
duties.  While it creates a danger that a "dangerous intent" can be
resolved within a holiday, note that the intent still needs be announced
before the holiday when people are still required to (generally) pay

Result here:  Intent announced before holiday, resolved within holiday
but more than 4 days later, therefore successful.  Promises were
destroyed, therefore FALSE.