Index ← 3551 CFJ 3552 3553 → text
==============================  CFJ 3552  ==============================

      babelian has pended eir most recently submitted proposal.


Caller:                       Publius Scribonius Scholasticus                        

Judge:                        o
Judgement:                    FALSE



Called by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:  13 Jul 2017                    
Assigned to o:                              01 Aug 2017
Judged FALSE by o:                          03 Aug 2017


Caller's Arguments:

                      It has previously been found that actions could
be spread across multiple messages. However, I am unsure of whether
the first payment would have been effective because e was doing with
the expressed intent of causing something to occur that could not
have occurred. If the first one, failed I believe the second one
failed for the same reason. Also, it is unclear whether these
messages constitute one action unambiguously. Given these
complications, I also request that the judge also give a
recommendation as to babelian’s current shiney balance.


Caller's Evidence:

On Jul 31, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Ajay Kumar Raja  wrote:
> I pay 5 more shinies to Agora to pay the full Pending List Price
> of 10 shinies. Given my "Welcome Package" of 50 shinies, I should
> have 40 shinies from that Welcome Package left over; therefore I
> transfer 5 shinies back to nichdel.


Judge's Arguments:

This appears to be the converse of CFJ 1470.

There is a strong game convention of forbidding retroactive effect.
While the act of performing a single act across multiple messages is NOT
regulated by the rules and is purely convention, it is not in the
interests of the game's health to permit an action which, taken on its
own, would fail, to succeed with the addition of a substantially-delayed
followup message.

A number of material game actions occurred between babelian's first and
second messages, so eir follow-up message, which purports to "top up"
the original attempt to pay for pending, should not be treated as a
continuation of the same act. Instead, we should treat them as two
separate attempts to pay 5 shinies apiece, and not as a single attempt
to pay 10 shinies.

As both actions were conditioned on pending a proposal, and as the
proposal could not be pended by paying 5 shinies on either occasion, I
find the statement

> babelian has pended eir most recently submitted proposal

to be FALSE. In consolation, babelian has clearly kept all ten of eir
shinies, and can easily correct the mistake by pending the proposal with
either shinies or action points at this time.