Format for e-mail
| CFJ: | 2678 |
| Interest Index: | 2 |
| Statement: | The proposals FRC Recognition and No Vacancy v.2 are both Distributable. |
| Caller: | Walker |
| |
| Judge: | woggle |
| Judgement: | TRUE |
| |
| Appeal: | 2678a |
| Decision: | REMAND |
| |
| Judge: | woggle |
| Judgement: | FALSE |
| |
| Currently Eligible: | coppro, Murphy |
History:
| Called by Walker | 5 Sep 2009 15:08:27 GMT |
| Assigned to woggle | 15 Sep 2009 07:32:39 GMT |
| Judged TRUE by woggle | 18 Sep 2009 20:49:23 GMT |
| Appealed by woggle | 18 Sep 2009 23:45:57 GMT |
| Appealed by Murphy | 19 Sep 2009 01:16:12 GMT |
| Appealed by Pavitra | 19 Sep 2009 03:32:26 GMT |
| Appeal 2678a | 19 Sep 2009 03:32:26 GMT |
| REMANDED on Appeal | 30 Sep 2009 22:17:56 GMT |
| Remanded to woggle | 30 Sep 2009 22:17:56 GMT |
| Judged FALSE by woggle | 3 Oct 2009 21:09:05 GMT |
Caller's Arguments: | | (5 Sep 2009 15:08:27 GMT) |
The relevant text from R2259 (Hand Limits), which is quoted fully in
the evidence below, states that:
When any other entity is audited X random cards that entity
owns are destroyed, where X equals the number of card that
entity owns minus eir hand limit (minimum 0)..
This means that when I self-audited, 10 Cards in my possession were
destroyed, but there is no way to find out exactly which ones were
destroyed. Therefore I argue for a judgement of UNDETERMINED.
Also, I am disregarding Tiger's messages as they have no authority on
the matter (except if they count as a self-ratifying report, in which
case this CFJ probably counts as a doubt on the document).
Caller's Evidence: | | (5 Sep 2009 15:08:27 GMT) |
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Charles
Walker<charles.w.walker@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I spend Distrib-u-matic to make the proposal FIXME Distributable.
>
> I go on hold.
>
> I audit myself.
>
> I come off hold.
>
> I spend Distrib-u-matic to make the proposal FRC Recognition Distributable.
>
> I spend Distrib-u-matic to make the proposal No Vacancy v.2 Distributable.
>From Rule 2259 (Hand Limits):
Any entity CAN audit itself by announcement. When an active
player is audited that player gains one Rest for each
rule-defined card e owns in excess of eir hand limit (minimum
0). When any other entity is audited X random cards that entity
owns are destroyed, where X equals the number of card that
entity owns minus eir hand limit (minimum 0)..
Gratuitous Arguments by Tiger: | | (5 Sep 2009 15:16:53 GMT) |
dice@nomic.net has been used in the past when random results were
needed, though before this situation it has always been a recordkeepor
with some authority who has said "I destroy these assets, see the dice
results for proof that they are randomly chosen". In this situation
there is noone to perform the destructions as it happens platonically,
so I say that the first message from an accepted source of randomness
(here dice@nomic.net) should count as determining what happened.
Judge woggle's Arguments: | | (18 Sep 2009 20:49:23 GMT) |
From Pavitra's precedent in CFJ 2677 (why weren't these cases linked?),
I judge TRUE.
