Index ← 3692 CFJ 3698 3699 → text
===============================  CFJ 3698  ===============================

      D. Margaux committed at least 1,000,000,000 rule violations.

==========================================================================

Caller:                        D. Margaux

Judge:                         G.
Judgement:                     FALSE

==========================================================================

History:

Called by D. Margaux:                             22 Jan 2019 12:44:12
Assigned to G.:                                   30 Jan 2019 17:20:52
Judged FALSE by G.:                               30 Jan 2019 21:06:13

==========================================================================

Judge G.'s Arguments:

The text containing the alleged violations was:
> Pursuant to Rule 2542, as Arbitor, I award myself 1,000,000,000 favours in
> COS.

The rule text in question in R2542 is:
>      The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the
>      listed Parties, but SHALL NOT do so except as required by rule.
>
>      - Arbitor and Referee: the Party holding Justice.

The attempt to award 1,000,000 favors was governed by a "CAN but SHALL NOT
except as required", and the favour award(s) weren't required, so these are
the alleged violations.  So the question is (1) did it succeed and (2) if it
did succeed, did it amount 1,000,000,000 penalties?  By R2531(7), a single
instance of "conduct" (i.e. a single act) can only be punished once - this
reduces to the question "was an award of 1,000,000,000 favors written as a
single sentence a single act of conduct?"

First, on the success (By R2531(2), we don't punish failed attempts at rules
violations unless No Faking applies).  One question is whether "award" means
anything in the context of Favours.  There's no explicit definition of the
process - (when this was first enacted a couple years ago, "award" did have
an explicit definition for assets IIRC).  As a common definition "award"
means "to give something" so it should amount to the recipient getting it -
the question is whether there's a source.  Fortunately, R2577 defines
"granting" assets as creating them in the recipient's possession, and I find
that "award" is a close enough synonym to "grant" in this context for this
to work (evidence:  in my real life budgeting, "grants and awards" is a
specific line item category and everyone uses them interchangeably for the
most part).

I can find no other reason that the act(s) would have failed, so they
succeeded.

How many acts?  A single act of granting (of N favours) can be performed
practically as N acts of 1 favour.  CFJ 3597 made it clear, though, that
they are not wholly interchangable, and it depends on the authorizing rule
in question.   In CFJ 3597, it was found that when the rules say "you have
to spend N coins to perform single act X", those have to be made as a single
payment (a single act). So if you try to transfer N coins when you only have
N-1 coins, the whole thing fails a single act, you don't transfer a partial
sum.  Conversely, R2449 makes it clear that the award of a champion is a
single once-only award per win.  So if I say "I award the patent title
Champion to D. Margaux 500 times" and D. Margaux only won 499 times, it's
treated as if I wrote out 500 awards with 499 succeeding and the last one
failing.

So it depends on the text of the rule in question.  In this case, R2542
pluralizes "favours" in "CAN...award favours"; moreover, later it describes
an award of 3 favours as a requirement for a single act.  This suitably
implies that, by default, a single statement "awarding N favours" is a
single act.  (I say "by default" because it's likely possible to override
this - for example by saying "I make N awards of 1 each").

Therefore, this award of 1,000,000,000 favours in this situation was a
single act, and a single rules violation.  I find FALSE.

==========================================================================