On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 17:35 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: >> Sean Hunt wrote: >>> Ed Murphy wrote: >>>> Denied. The history reflects that destruction. (The real discrepancy >>>> is the creation of those rests in the first place; it happened on March >>>> 10, but I missed including it in the March 15 report.) >>> >>> CoE: No CoE was submitted; the March 15 report has since self-ratified. >>> Taral has two Rests more than e should. >> I withdraw the CoE, having noticed that the appeals panel can only >> destroy those Rests created with regards to the previous judgment, and >> that those Rests were never created according to the self-ratified March >> 15 Fnord!. Since Rests are not fungible, the ones destroyable by the >> appeals panel never existed, therefore the action by the appeals panel >> to destroy those Rests failed. > > I suspect Rests are fungible even though the rules don't say they are. > See CFJ 2176 (the most recent precedent on the matter), as well as > certain older precedents (referenced in that case, or by a zenith-cotc > search for "fungible").
Ah yes, as long as a particular rest doesn't pick up a stray trackable quality, that one works. (stray trackable quantity e.g. "doesn't ban ehird from spending notes"). The ancient case of "bonds" that were defined as a fungible currency, yet picked up secondary identifying characteristics (being either redeemed or unredeemed) nearly split the gamestate and cause a raft of CFJs at one point. -Goethe
