On 8/13/24 8:44 AM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-official wrote:
I assign CFJs 4090 and 4091 to Mischief.
CFJ 4090 was called by 4st and reads: 'I have at least one ownership of
the Veblen, since I "gains ownership of the Veblen".'
CFJ 4091 was called by 4st and reads: 'I currently have 5 spendies."
Proto-judgements for each...
CFJ 4090
Statement: I have at least one ownership of the Veblen, since I "gains
ownership of the Veblen".
I judge this statement FALSE, "ownership of the Veblen" is not an asset,
and (as of the CFJ) 4st owns the Veblen. I also admonish the author of
proposal 9142 to draft eir proposals more carefully in the future.
Finding 1: "ownership of the Veblen" is not an asset.
Rule 2695/0 (The Veblen) reads in part:
Any player CAN pay a fee of X Spendies to transfer the Veblen to
to emself, where X is a value greater than or equal to the current
Veblen Cost. Upon doing so, e gains ownership of the Veblen, and
the Veblen Cost is set to X+1.
At 22 Jul 2024 15:24:18 -0700, 4st exercised this provision one or more
times (see linked CFJ 4091).
Is "ownership of the Veblen" (distinct from the Veblen itself) an asset?
Rule 2166/31 (Assets) imposes three conditions:
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.
The next paragraph grants Mint Authority to the rules collectively, so
if rule 2695 defines "ownership of the Veblen" as an asset then the
second condition is automatically met. The Veblen and "ownership of the
Veblen" would cease to exist if rule 2695 were repealed, so the third
condition is met.
Does rule 2695 define "ownership of the Veblen" as an asset? It does not
do so explicitly. Could it do so implicitly, though? After all, to
"gain" an asset is explicitly defined in rule 2577.
However, the rules use "gain" in other contexts. In the context of
radiance, it means to increase a player's Radiance switch (rule 2656). A
player can "gain" a White Ribbon via another player's action (rule
2438), which likewise involves the flip of a switch. Rule 879/40
(Quorom) provides an example that involves neither assets nor switches:
"The quorum that an Agoran decision gains as it is created can be
defined by other rules of power 2 or greater." To conclude that
"ownership of the Veblen" is an asset would very strongly imply that
"quorum" is also an asset (rule 879 again: "Each Agoran decision has a
quorum." -- another asset-esque wording!). This strained reading would
go against game custom, common sense, and potentially the best interests
of the game (what if a player became the owner of a decision's quorom,
then destroyed it?).
Thus, this judge finds that "ownership of the Veblen" is not an asset
Finding 2: the "gains ownership" clause is redundant
Given that "ownership of the Veblen" is not an asset -- and so is not
triggering rule 2577's definition -- then what does it mean? To this
judge, the most natural reading of rule 2695 is:
1) a player can transfer the Veblen to emself by 2) paying a fee. When e
does so, additionally 3) e becomes the owner of the Veblen and 4) the
Veblen's cost increases.
#3 in particular is based on the common usage of "gain ownership" to
mean "become owner of something, especially when one does not already
own it". #1 already takes care of that immediately prior, though, so the
"gains ownership" piece is redundant.
How to resolve the specific statement in question, then? At the time of
the CFJ, 4st owned the Veblen. To be less concise, e had ownership of
the Veblen. Somewhat more convolutedly, e had at least one ownership of
the Veblen (it happens to be exactly one instance of ownership).
There's the second half of the statement, though: since I "gains
ownership of the Veblen". This adds a wrinkle -- finding 2 says that
clause in rule 2695 is redundant. The "transfer the Veblen to to [sic]
emself" (seriously, author of proposal 9142... do better) step
accomplishes the same thing. Because it explicitly quotes a portion of a
rule, that portion of the statement refers to the specific provision
(labeled #3 earlier) in rule 2695. If it were unquoted, then #1 would
satisfy it too, as it has a similar meaning. A statement of the form X
because of Y is false if X is true but as a result of cause Z instead of
cause Y. Thus, even though 4st owns the Veblen, e does not do so because
of the "gains ownership of the Veblen" provision, and the statement is
FALSE.
CFJ 4091
Statement: I currently have 5 spendies.
I judge the statement as written TRUE. However, the statement "I [4st]
currently have exactly 5 spendies." is FALSE.
Rule 2695/0 (The Veblen) reads in part:
Any player CAN pay a fee of X Spendies to transfer the Veblen to
to emself, where X is a value greater than or equal to the current
Veblen Cost. Upon doing so, e gains ownership of the Veblen, and
the Veblen Cost is set to X+1.
At 22 Jul 2024 15:24:18 -0700, 4st exercised this provision one or more
times.
Rule 2695 also explicitly defines the Veblen as an asset, so it meets
all three conditions of rule 2166/31 (Assets) to be one:
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.
To "transfer" an asset is explicitly defined in rule 2577/8 (Asset Actions):
An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its
backing document. Attempts to transfer no assets are successful. A
fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and
CANNOT be transferred except as explicitly specified by its
backing document; any other asset is liquid.
Could rule 2695 be defining a different transfer mechanism, separate
from the one in rule 2577? As in linked CFJ 4090, to this judge, the
most natural reading of rule 2695 is:
1) a player can transfer the Veblen to emself by 2) paying a fee. When e
does so, additionally 3) [per CFJ 4090, redundantly] e becomes the owner
of the Veblen and 4) the Veblen's cost increases.
In addition, I believe it is in the best interest of the game that when
a term ("transfer") is defined in a specific context ("asset"), uses of
that term in that context should default to the definition unless we
have a good reason to read it otherwise. (This differs from CFJ 4090,
where part of the question is what the underlying context even is.) So
the transfer mechanism in rule 2695 is the one defined in rule 2577. In
particular, the owner before and after the transfer cannot be the same
entity.
Rule 2579/3 (Fee-based Actions) states in part:
To use a fee-based method, an entity (the Actor) who is otherwise
permitted to perform the action
For 4st's second through fifth attempts, e was not permitted to transfer
the Veblen to emself, so they were not valid uses of a fee-based method.
Thus, 4st purchased the Veblen only once, at a total cost of 1 spendie.
At the beginning of July, 4st had 20 spendies. A search of eir
agora-official, agora-business, and ALT messages between then and the
time e called the CFJ did not reveal any events that would change that,
other than eir purchase of the Veblen. E therefore had 19 spendies at
the time. Thus, it is true that e had [at least] 5 spendies at the time
but e did not have [exactly] five spendies.
--
Mischief
Collector
Hat: steampunk hat
Vitality: ghostly
Bang holdings: 0
