rfj add 42/0 19 Mar 2001 14:52:36 Jeff Schroeder The actions of a Player who holds an Office are actions that are committed by the Player and the Officer. >> But you made a Motion for Repayment for it that was active when voting >> began. > >Actually, I didn't. The Bank did... [snip] The statements above seems to indicate that the Officer and the Player are different entities. I believe that they are the same entity that perform different tasks depending on the situation and the applicable Rules. The Player Joel states that the Player Poulenc made the Motion for Repayment, and Poulenc claims that e did not, the Bank did. I want a ruling on whether Poulenc made the Motion for Repayment in his role as an Officer or if the Banker as a separate entity made the Motion. ---- rfj assign 42/0 19 Mar 2001 14:56:39 Dave ---- rfj ruling 42/0 19 Mar 2001 19:06:35 Dave true Rule 108/0: "A Player holding an Office is an Officer. Officers have certain duties and privileges by virtue of their Offices..." This makes it clear that "Officer" is a subset of "Player," specifically a Player who holds an Office as defined elsewhere in the Rules, and who holds "certain duties and privileges." Examples: Rule 318/0: "The Office of The Banker is an elective office. It is the responsibility of the Banker to post actions to the public forum for the Bank... It is up to the Banker to decide what actions the Bank will take." Rule 321/0: "The Officer of Bean Counting (OBC) is an Elected Officer. The OBC is responsible for keeping track of the number of each Object currently owned by each Agent." Rules 208/1, 310/0, and 324/0 all work in roughly the same way: defining an Office, and clarifying that duties are attached to an Office, which (per 108/0) is merely a set of special privileges and responsibilities assigned to a Player. In general, actions of an Officer are in fact committed by the Player holding that office, and as such I rule TRUE. There are a few specific exceptions (like Rule 317/2, where the Banker orders the Bank to submit a motion, but the motion is NOT actually submitted by the Banker), but all the exceptions of which I am aware are sufficiently clear in the Rules. ---- rfj ruling 40/0 28 Mar 2001 15:11:21 Poulenc false As a blanket statement, this is very difficult to judge true. There are rules which transfer a player's points automatically, such as R351, Automatic Debt Payment. There are also rules which instead create a debt for the required amount or which require the Administrator to make the transfer. However, with the exception of R351, the the transfer of a player's points is not allowed without the consent of that player. The player of a contest would normally have to points eir entry to the Public Forum, and this post also counts as a point transfer. However, the simmiliarity challenge is an exception to this in which the joining posts are only sent to the contestmaster. It is still an entry, however, and the action of joining a simmilarity challenge still includes a point transfer. The Contestmaster should include with eir end-of-contest report a summary of the point transfers involved. ---- rfj recuse 37/0 28 Mar 2001 16:38:17 M'cachessilnath ---- rfj recuse 41/0 28 Mar 2001 16:38:17 Joel ---- rfj assign 37/0 28 Mar 2001 16:38:17 Jonno ---- rfj assign 41/0 28 Mar 2001 16:38:17 The Kid ---- rfj ruling 41/0 29 Mar 2001 09:58:01 The Kid false The main point of this RFJ relies on the line from R347/0 "the debt is always owned by its creator". What the RFJ did not quote was the first half of that sentence. In it's entirety the line is "Unless specified otherwise by the rules or a legislative, administrative, or judicial order the debt is always owed by its creator." This part of R347/0 is allowing Agents to create Debts. As such the debt is first created so that the creator owes emself the points. The debt is then transferred as needed. In R358/0 a debt is implicitly created. Who created these debts? It does not explicitly say who created the debt, but it does explicitly say who is the debtor and who is the creditor. The debt is created by the Rules, not by any Agent. (The Rules are not an Agent.) Therefore I believe that it is "specified otherwise by the rules" that the debt in this case is not owed by the creator. The conclusion I come to is this: When an Agent creates a debt by posting their intent to the Public Forum, the debt is payable to the debtor until the debtor transfers ownership of the debt. When a debt is created by the Rules, a debtor and a creditor are specified and the debt is owed by the debtor to the creditor until the creditor transfers ownership of the debt (or the debt is paid). So the statement is sometimes true, sometimes false. However, because it is not *always* true, my ruling is FALSE. I make the following Judicial Orders: 1. The actions taken by Joerg on 15 Mar 2001 20:18:25 -0000 attempting to pay his debts to himself are invalid. As such he still owes the bank the 17 points that he owed to the bank at that time. (Plus or minus any legitimate variances since that time.) 2. Debts that are created by the Rules shall be payable by the specified debtor to the specified creditor. The creditor shall be the initial owner of the debt. ----