Index ← 3749 CFJ 3750 3751 → text
===============================  CFJ 3750  ===============================

      In this message, G. destroyed a coin.

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

Caller:                        G.

Judge:                         twg
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by G.:                                     01 Jul 2019 15:29:30
Assigned to twg:                                  03 Jul 2019 00:52:46
Judged FALSE by twg:                              03 Jul 2019 10:11:12

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

Caller's Arguments:

The award in question is not a fee-based action at all.  R2579 specifies
that if a *correct* fee-announcement is (but e.g. the actor does not have
the fee) then no asset holdings are changed.  In the case of an
"incorrect" fee-announcement, there's no fail-safe that I can find one
way or the other - do the assets change?

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

Caller's Evidence:

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:29 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
> I award myself the Patent Title "nouveau riche" by paying a fee of 1 
> Coin for this sole purpose.

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

Judge twg's Arguments:

On July 3, 2019 3:05 AM, James Cook wrote:
> Gratuitous:
>
> I don't think I understood G.'s argument. As far as I can tell, this
> is straightforward. R2579 says "To perform a fee-based action, an
> entity ... must announce", and later "Upon such an announcement". I
> think the first excerpt is clearly only talking about fee-based
> actions, and the second excerpt refers to the first and so is also
> only talking about fee-based actions. As G. points out in eir original
> argument, this is not a fee-based action. So R2579 does not define any
> mechanism for G. to destroy a Coin when no fee-based action is
> involved.

Precisely so.

Assets CANNOT be destroyed except as explicitly specified by their
backing document (R2577/2 "Asset Actions"), which for coins is the
Ruleset as a whole. The Ruleset specifies the following mechanisms by
which a coin can be destroyed:

* by announcement, if it is owned by a contract and the contract permits
it (R1742/21 "Contracts");
* immediately, if it is owned by an entity other than a player or the
Lost and Found Department (R2576/0 "Ownership");
* without objection, if it is owned by the Lost and Found Department
(R2576/0);
* by announcement, by its owner (R2577/2);
* upon announcement of the performance of a fee-based action by the
coin's owner if it is the fee and there is no recipient specified for it
(R2579/0 "Fee-based actions").

The first three mechanisms clearly do not apply here because G. is not a
player and is neither a contract nor the Lost and Found Department. Nor
does the last, because, as Falsifian correctly identifies, G. did not
announce eir performance of a fee-based action in the message. So the
only mechanism that could plausibly apply is "by announcement".

R478/34 "Fora" says:

      Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
      announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
      clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.

Did G. unambiguously and clearly specify the action of destroying one of
eir coins and announce that e performed it? No, of course not. Even
disregarding the question of which grammatical phrasings count as an
announcement, it's so ambiguous that e had to call a CFJ about it!

I judge CFJ 3750 FALSE.

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