Index ← 3698 CFJ 3699 3700 → text
===============================  CFJ 3699  ===============================

      A Spaceship owned by the Lost and Found Department is in Sector
      05.

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

Caller:                        Telnaior

Judge:                         Trigon
Judgement:                     TRUE

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

History:

Called by Telnaior:                               29 Jan 2019 16:51:11
Assigned to Trigon:                               29 Jan 2019 17:12:22
Judged TRUE by Trigon:                            02 Feb 2019 07:59:10

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

Caller's Arguments:

This basically comes down to whether or not the Spaceship in question
was destroyed upon transfer to the Lost and Found Department when I was
deregistered by FAGE. (I'm guessing the spaceship from zombie-me was
self-ratified out of existence by now regardless, which simplifies
things a little).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Trigon's Arguments:

Events leading up to this CFJ:

1. No spaceship existed in Sector 05 on January 21
2. Telnaior registering on January 29 created a new spaceship
3. Telnaior deregistered the same day
4. Telnaior registering again created another new spaceship

The main point of ambiguity is that when Telnaior deregistered during
Event 3, we don't know where eir spaceship went.

So what /could/ have happened to it?

Possibilities:

1. It was destroyed because it left the class of entities its ownership
    was restricted to (Rule 2576 'Ownership' ¶1), or
2. It is owned by the Lost and Found Department because any entity which
    would otherwise lack an owner is owned by it (Rule 2576 'Ownership'
    ¶2).

Since these are in the same rule, which one takes precedence? We need to
look to Rule 2240 ('No Cretens Need Apply') for clarification. This rule
says that if one does not claim precedence over the other, the later
clause wins out. If the "rules to the contrary notwithstanding" in the
second paragraph doesn't already make Possibility 2 win out -- I won't
state either way because I don't know -- the clause supporting it comes
in ¶2 of Rule 2576, after Possibility 1.

I judge TRUE.

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