============================= CFJ 3473 =============================
On or around 05-Jan-17 08:07:23 UTC, o caused Agora to pay 10
Shinies to G.
Called by G.: 06 Jan 2017
Assigned to Alexis: 06 Jan 2017
Alexis Recused: 19 May 2017
Assigned to Quazie: 19 May 2017
Judged TRUE by Quazie: 19 May 2017
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017, 15:36 Aris Merchant, wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Jan 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> there's nothing that says the "plus 10" can't be in a separate later message,
> >> or that you can't do partial awards in general, as long as you get it all in
> >> within 7 days. For example, which of the following work, or don't work:
> > Relevant addition. This clause:
> >> If Agora's Balance becomes 0 or less before every player is paid,
> >> the Secretary SHALL continue to cause Agora to pay until every
> >> player has been paid.
> > on one hand implies that a single message with all transfers doesn't fail
> > because Agora runs out of money halfway through the message execution. On
> > the other hand, it implies that the Secretary's duties may be partially
> > satisfied and still work ("continue to cause", implying that it's a set of
> > separable transfers, that can be interrupted and re-started).
> I tend to be of the opinion that partial paying succeeds. It seems to
> be that generally when you authorize someone to pay out a certain
> amount of money, you also implicitly authorize them to pay out less
> than that amount. The authorization and the obligation are separate,
> so it should work. Even if that isn't so, the rule doesn't say
> anything about it all being required to happen in one message (as G.
> says), although accepting the latter without the former leads to the
> somewhat surprising conclusion that payments can retroactively fail
> (or, more sanely, that the payment is not final until complete). It
> would be interesting to see how a CFJ would go though.
> What does everyone think about making this an automatic transaction,
> which the Secretary merely obliged to report it, perhaps in a self
> ratifying way? It would avoid this problem, and not enough things
> happen platonically. Oh, and just to mention the other proposed
> solution, I think a CoE would fail (payment happens once, except
> possibly with credit systems).
I judge CFJ 3473 as TRUE.
Thankfully this judgment doesn't change the world in any appreciable
way, as all of the relevant reports have been ratified.
Also note: There are many more gratuitous arguments from o that are
relevant, but Grammatical rules take precedence when using english
words, and that is where
The rule, at the time stated:
> At the start of each month, if Agora's Balance is not 0 or less,
> the Secretary SHALL, within 7 days, cause Agora to pay each player
> 10 shinies, plus another 10 shinies for each office that player
There are two interpretations here, and it boils down to what the
word `plus` means.
If the word plus implies addition, then I agree with o's
interpretation, and the Secretary would only only be allowed to pay
the exact total of 10 + officer salary:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:43 PM Owen Jacobson wrote:
> If paying is a regulated action under rule 2125, then only the
> following payments work:
> - A valid payment by a player to any player, to any organization,
> or to Agora, and
> - A payday payment by Agora, to any player, for exactly their
> payday amount.
BUT if the word is used as a conjunction then the rule gave the
secretary 2 seperate duties:
1 - Pay each player 10 shinies.
2 - Pay each player 10 shinies for each office that player holds.
Given the wording of the rule at the time, specifically the comma
before the word plus, I am left to interpret the word `plus` as a
synonym for the word `and` as the comma only makes sense if the word
plus is a conjunction.
It's left as an exercise for the reader to determine if any of the
grouped payments (Player + Officer Salary) made around this time were
valid, though it's of this judges opinion that grouping the payments
likely would've been valid as well.