Index ← 3771 CFJ 3772 3773 → text
===============================  CFJ 3772  ===============================

      Existing is a regulated action.

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

Caller:                        Jason Cobb

Judge:                         G.
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by Jason Cobb:                             02 Sep 2019 01:15:19
Assigned to G.:                                   02 Sep 2019 01:25:42
Judged FALSE by G.:                               02 Sep 2019 13:01:29

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

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2125:
>       An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
>       permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which
>       the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part
>       of its effect, modify information for which some player is
>       required to be a recordkeepor.

Rule 2166:
>       An asset is an entity defined as such by a document that has been
>       granted Mint Authority by the Rules (hereafter the asset's backing
>       document), and existing solely because its backing document
>       defines its existence. An asset's backing document can generally
>       specify when and how that asset is created, destroyed, and
>       transferred.


Rule 1586:
>       If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
>       defines the second entity both before and after the amendment, but
>       with different attributes, then the second entity and its
>       attributes continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under
>       the new definitions.

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

Caller's Arguments:

There are certainly places where the Rules "limit, allow, enable, or
permit" the action of existing. I've included two in evidence: Rule 2166
permits the existence of assets, and Rule 1586 explicitly limits the
existence of entities that are defined by other entities. In addition,
an argument could be made that the Rules "enable" all other game-defined
entities to exist. This fulfills criterion (1) in Rule 2125 for making
the action of existing a regulated action.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

R101 lays out 4 "pillars" of interacting concepts that affect play in
Agora - Persons, Rules, Actions, and Fora.  Persons, Rules, and Fora are
explicitly defined (R869, R2141, and R478 respectively) but Actions are
not.  So we must define what an "action" is using common definitions, game
custom, common sense, past judgements, etc.

So some of those considerations:

- a verb is not necessarily an action; in particular, "to be" verbs
(including "to exist") are grammatically considered to be "non-action"
verbs - searching the term "non-action verb" gives plenty of basic grammar
lessons on this.  So right off the bat, "to exist" is not an "action",
grammatically (nor are concepts like "to possess" for assets, etc.)

- the common definition of "action" focuses on accomplishment, acts of
will, and "the bringing about of an alteration by force", with
"alteration" being a key concept here.  No alteration (in state of
existence) means no action.

- And let's not forget Newton:  no change in existence state (velocity,
 etc.) = no action.

- Changes in existence state (e.g. ceasing to exist) are indeed actions -
inferring the state as an action would make these situations (actions
performed on actions) rather messy.

- CFJ 3529 found that for switches, "no change" = "no action" (this has
since been legislatively clarified by the addition of the final paragraph
of R2162, but the CFJ was judged without that clause).

- CFJ 1895 found that "being a particular person" (i.e. external
existence) is generally a non-manipulable condition.  This is particularly
relevant with respect to R2466 (Acting on Behalf), reading "existence" as
an action would allow a person to act-on-behalf of a principal to "be" the
principal, which has been rejected.

- Finally, a survey of the current rules firmly associates the term
"action" with performable acts of will (or timed events), excluding non-
action verbs from being R101 "actions" is consistent with all uses and
breaks nothing, as far as this judge can tell.

Therefore, I find FALSE: Existing is not a regulated action, because it is
not an action.

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