=============================== CFJ 3653 ===============================
If a facility has an upkeep cost of 0 (i.e. null), the owner must
announce an attempt to pay 0 in a month (or otherwise publicly
note) the upkeep cost of 0 to prevent its end-of-the-month
destruction.
==========================================================================
Caller: G.
Judge: Aris
Judgement: FALSE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by G.: 20 Jul 2018 18:47:04
Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: 23 Jul 2018 00:03:52
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus Recused: 26 Aug 2018 18:43:21
Assigned to Aris: 26 Aug 2018 18:43:21
Judged FALSE by Aris: 04 Sep 2018 05:08:11
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
Rule 2560 (Facilities) reads in part:
If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep
costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next Agoran
month. Failing to do this destroys the facility. In the second to
last Eastman week of the Agoran Month, the Cartographor SHOULD
issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
upkeep fees on any of eir facilities.
Prior to the adoption of Proposal 8055, it was unclear whether a facility
with a defined upkeep cost of 0 (as opposed to no upkeep cost) needed some
kind of announcement to prevent its destruction, but the Cartographer and
the rest of us had assumed it meant "no action necessary" (and all records
have self-ratified with this assumption).
Proposal 8055 created the power-3 "Fee-based Actions" Rule, which
includes:
If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter
the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action.
and also:
If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
set of assets is the empty set, then the action can be performed by
announcement, but the announcement must include that there
is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.
This implies some kind of announcement is now necessary. However, it's
far from clear. In particular, the "associated action" for Upkeep Costs
is not a direct action, but something like paying the fee itself, or
"preventing end-of-the-month destruction" or something.
Caller's Evidence:
Full text of Fee-based Actions (power-3):
If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter
the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action.
If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual
fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
is performing the action; the announcement must specify the
correct set of assets for the fee and indicate intent
to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
Upon such an announcement:
- If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
and the action is performed simultaneously;
- If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
performed simultaneously.
- Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
action is not performed.
If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
set of assets is the empty set, then the action can be performed by
announcement, but the announcement must include that there
is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Aris's Arguments:
This will be a summary opinion, I'm afraid, as I'm pretty busy. No fee
is associated with upkeep, because a fee must be associated "with
performing an action", and paying upkeep is paying the fee, not using it
to perform an action. Now generally, we should apply similar doctrines to
similar cases, so it would make sense to apply the fee-based action rule
as guidance in this case. However, having to announce that one is paying
the null fee makes decidedly more sense when one has to announce that one
is taking an action anyway. For this reason, I rule that no such
announcement is required in this case. FALSE.
Judge Aris's Evidence:
Fee-based Actions Rule
If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter
the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action.
If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual
fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
is performing the action; the announcement must specify the
correct set of assets for the fee and indicate intent
to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
Upon such an announcement:
- If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
and the action is performed simultaneously;
- If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
performed simultaneously.
- Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
action is not performed.
If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
set of assets is the empty set, then the action can be performed by
announcement, but the announcement must include that there
is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.
Rule 2560/1 (Power=2.0)
Facilities
Facilities are liquid assets tracked by the Cartographor. In order
for a facility to exist, it must be built on a Land Unit. Only one
facility is allowed per Land Unit. The Land Unit on which a
Facility is built is considered its Parent Land Unit.
A player CAN create a facility by announcement on the land unit e
is on by specifying which type of facility e intends to build and
destroying the build cost. Facilities on proprietary land can be
destroyed by the owner by announcement. Facilities on public land
can be destroyed Without Objection.
If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep
costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next Agoran
month. Failing to do this destroys the facility. In the second to
last Eastman week of the Agoran Month, the Cartographor SHOULD
issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
upkeep fees on any of eir facilities.
Facilities always have the same owner as their parent land unit.
If the owner of a facility is ever not the same as that of its
parent land unit, it is transferred to the owner of its parent
land unit.
==========================================================================