On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2309
>
> ============================== CFJ 2309 ==============================
>
> ehird is a party to the Vote Market
R2166 reads, in part:
An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract
(hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because
its backing document defines its existence.
Two parts of this are relevant to this case. First, the rule uses the
singular "a rule or contract"; an asset can have on a single backing
document. Second, an asset must exist solely because its backing
document defines its existence. This strengthens the first point; if
two contracts define something, it would continue to be defined if
either of the contracts ceased to exist and thus could not be an
asset.
Before the actions to which this case pertains, Vote Points
unambiguously were defined only by the Vote Market agreement, which
was their backing document. If ehird's pledge could also define Vote
Points at the same time the Vote Market did so, Vote Points would
cease to be an asset under Rule 2166.
Rule 1586 says, in part:
If multiple rules or contracts (hereafter documents) attempt to
define an entity with the same name, then they refer to the same
entity.
Thus, ehird's pledge's attempt to define Vote Points succeeding in
doing so and referred to the same entity the Vote Market did.
Now, the question is whether ehird's pledge makes it so e CAN create
Vote-Points-the-non-asset-entity, and if so, whether those Vote Points
became Vote-Points-the-Asset when the pledge was terminated.
Since at the time the contract existed Vote Points were not an Asset,
R2166's grant of the ability of a Recordkeepor to generally create
assets does not apply. No other rule specifically allows the creation
of a Vote Point entity, so their creation is legal if and only if it's
an unregulated action. Rule 2125(e) says that an action that would,
as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is
required to be recordkeepor is impossible except as allowed by other
rules. While the instantaneous creation of contract state in ehird's
contract of the existence of 1000 VP in eir possession does not, at
the time it happens, create any recordkeeping obligation (since only
recordkeepors of assets have such an obligation), the compound action
of creating pledge-defined VP and then transforming them back to an
asset by terminating the pledge CANNOT modify any information for
which BobTHJ is required to act as recordkeepor. The continuity of the
1000 VPs granted by R1586 thus conflicts with R2125, and R2125 takes
precedence by means of having a higher power.
The court rules TRUE in CFJ 2309.
