> On Mar 24, 2026, at 10:23 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 3/18/26 09:55, Nilrem via agora-business wrote: >>> On 2/27/26 6:06 AM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: >>> On 2/26/26 11:51, Gregory Hayes via agora-business wrote: >>>> I call for judgment on the following statement: "Galle CAN transfer a >>>> Contratoken to the Contradictory Contract." I submit the text of the >>>> Contradictory Contract as evidence, and the following as arguments: >>> >>> I favor (favour) this case. >>> >>> On 2/27/26 1:51 AM, Gregory Hayes via agora-business wrote: >>> I call for judgment on the following statement: "Galle CAN transfer a >>> Contratoken to the Contradictory Contract." I submit the text of the >>> Contradictory Contract as evidence, and the following as arguments: >> I temporarily deputise as Arbitor to assign Janet as judge for this CFJ. >> >> (I'm curious how this one will turn out, it would be a shame if it got >> left behind just because there is no Arbitor at the moment) >> >> -Nilrem > > > The above-assigned CFJ is judged FALSE. > > > Arguments: > > { > > This is a clever attempt at a paradox! Unfortunately, I evidently > attempted something very similar to this years ago. (I had completely > forgotten this, and I only re-discovered it while doing research for > this case.) > > In CFJ 3761, Judge G. found that: > > { > > Since the specification has to be performed by the backing document as > a whole, if internal clauses conflict in setting out the > specification, without providing a mechanism for conflict resolution – > the net effect is that the clauses fail at specification, and are simply > void and without effect due to ambiguity. > > } > > Given that Rule 2576/5 mirrors the language of Rule 2166 then in effect > (by requiring that the backing document "specify" something), and there > being no relevant change in the law governing what to "specify" means, I > find that this precedent is still in force. (For the avoidance of doubt, > I would likely have found the same de novo: a self-contradictory > specification is no specification at all.) > > We now move to how this affects the outcome of the case. The contract is > certainly not "silent" about ownership of Contratokens, so the default > in Rule 2576 does not apply, and the only entities that can own a > Contratoken are those specified by the contract. It is not necessarily > clear whether the contract specifies that Galle can own a Contratoken > (since it is internally self-consistent about that, at least), but, per > the previous holding, it certainly does not specify that the > Contradictory Contract can. > > As such, the Contradictory Contract cannot own Contratokens, and Galle > CANNOT transfer a token to the Contradictory Contract. > > Judged FALSE. > > } > > Evidence: > > { > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Rule 2576/5 (Power=3) > Ownership > > Each asset has exactly one owner. > > An asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity unless > its backing document specifies that entity can own it. If an > asset's backing document is otherwise silent on which entities can > own it, then it can be owned by Agora, players, and contracts. > > An asset "in abeyance" is one whose owner is nonexistent, > indeterminate, or invalid. If an asset would otherwise be in > abeyance, then it is owned by the Lost and Found Department (if > possible) or destroyed (otherwise), subject to modification by its > backing document (provided that the modification either destroys > it or prevents it from being in abeyance). Rules to the contrary > notwithstanding, the Lost and Found Department can own assets of > every type. > > Assets owned by the Lost and Found Department can be transferred > or destroyed by any player without objection. Assets owned by the > Lost and Found Department can be transferred or destroyed by the > Executor, as authorized by the Executor's administrative > regulations. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > } > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor
Drat. Well, it was worth a shot.
