Index ← 3881 CFJ 3882 3883 → text
===============================  CFJ 3882  ===============================

      G. acted on behalf of Aris to transfer 10 coins today.

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

Caller:                        G.

Judge:                         Murphy
Judgement:                     TRUE

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

History:

Called by G.:                                     29 Aug 2020 21:09:57
Assigned to Murphy:                               30 Aug 2020 18:43:05
Judged TRUE by Murphy:                            07 Sep 2020 22:31:31
Motion to reconsider group-filed:                 13 Sep 2020 20:45:34

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

[Linked to CFJ 3881]

Caller's Evidence:

Contract by Aris allowing for a 10 coin transfer:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-August/044662.html

Notice given by ATMunn:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-August/044664.html

Notice given by G.:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-August/044669.html

Attempt at action after the notice period had passed, by ATMunn:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-August/044726.html

Attempt at action after the notice period had passed, by G.:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-August/044727.html


Caller's Arguments:

ATMunn wrote:
> Having given sufficient notice, I do so.

G. wrote:
> That's ISID - where's the proof and where's the claim and what's the
> valid judgement?  (I don't see any evidence that "file a proof of claim"
> is a term of art).

ATMunn wrote:
> Doesn't matter - the contract said it was a thing that could be done.

G. (edited response):
It says it can be done with Notice.  Notices require specifications, which
you haven't given.

For example, R991 says that you can call a CFJ specifying the statement
to be inquired into, by announcement.  If I say "I call a CFJ specifying
a statement to inquire into" then I actually haven't done so, even
though the rule literally says that.

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

G.'s attempt at action after the notice period was indeed a proof of a
claim that a specified judgement was valid. It's reasonably unambiguous
that Rule 591 defines FALSE as a valid judgement, and while it may or
may not have been appropriate for that CFJ, "valid" doesn't depend on
"appropriate" here. (Even Motions to Reconsider don't explicitly depend
on "appropriate"; the intended subtext is obvious, but there can also be
a MtR just because players think a judgement /might/ be inappropriate,
or want a judge to add something for the formal record even if they
don't expect it to affect the outcome, or because they want to game some
side effect of the process, e.g. if there was a bug allowing extra Blue
Glitter.)

The contract thus permitted the transfer (no argument was presented
suggesting that it would be otherwise inoperative). TRUE.

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