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



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
Judged TRUE by Murphy:                            20 Sep 2020 17:33:01


[Linked to CFJ 3881]

Caller's Evidence:

Contract by Aris allowing for a 10 coin transfer:

Notice given by ATMunn:

Notice given by G.:

Attempt at action after the notice period had passed, by ATMunn:

Attempt at action after the notice period had passed, by G.:

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

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


Gratuitous Arguments by Gaelan (for reconsideration): 

what G. Filed wasn't a proof of a *claim* of a valid judgement; it was
just a valid judgment. He never proved that he made the claim, which is
plainly what is required by the phrasing.


Judge Murphy's Arguments (upon reconsideration):

With respect, proving that e made the claim is plainly what is /not/
required by the phrasing.  Let's look at that phrasing again:

 > Contract: Proofs of Claim
 > Any player CAN, with notice, file a proof of a claim of a valid
 > judgement. The first player to do so CAN once act on Aris's behalf to
 > transfer 10 coins from Aris to emself; immediately thereafter, this
 > contract is destroyed.

Nowhere does this require that it be /eir own/ claim.

As reconsideration was requested, I'll also look more closely at Rule
2595 (Performing a Dependent Action), which regulates whether acting
with notice is possible. The only section that appears potentially
controversial is

       1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent
          that unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
          obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken and the
          method(s) to be used;

How much specification of the action and method does this require? In
this case, G.'s announcement of intent (AoI) specified the case, the
with-notice procedure, and the contract e intended to trigger, but not
specifically what the proof would be. However, the petitioners didn't
question eir success on these grounds, and I think that some similar
instances of with-notice in the past have been accepted as
uncontroversial. (There may be a thesis in this, if someone has the time
and energy to dig through the archives for with-notice actions since
R2595(1) took its current form.)

Arguably the contract does require that the claim existed as of the
AoI, and possibly that the resolution of intent (RoI) proved that it did
(in addition to proving that the claim is true, surely not /instead of/
proving that the claim is true). But on these points there is also no
controversy; the claim did exist as of the AoI, and G. proved that by
quoting it in the RoI (including a timestamp), which is a sufficient
standard of proof for something otherwise uncontroversial.

The only remaining way I see that G.'s transfer would have failed is if
ATMunn's transfer succeeded first, but IINM no one has disputed my
judgement in CFJ 3881 that it didn't.

Accordingly, I again judge CFJ 3882 TRUE.