spoon-business: judgement on rfj#38

[Benjamin Bradley <activist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In the matter,

M22, by Jeff Schroeder, text quoted below, did not result in a Motive
order requiring Poulenc to transfer 30 points to the bank, because its
wording and type (Bank Motion) were directed at the Bank, not
at Poulenc.
--motion:
I create a new Bank Motion requiring the bank to reclaim 30 out of the
current 60 outstanding points from Poulenc.  This will reduce Poulenc's
debt by 30.
---

I rule TRUE

Analysis:
I looked over the rules for about an hour and a half and what it comes
down to is this:
Taken in context, the motion could be jeff, as a player, submitting a Bank
Motion, directing the Bank to make a Motion for Repayment
or, it could be Jeff, acting in his capacity as the tax collector,
submitting a motion for repayment on behalf of the bank.
Because of the ambivalent nature of the motion, I feel we are forced to
let the literarity of the motion preside, meaning that Jeff actually
submitted a Bank Motion (requiring the Bank to make a Motion for
Repayment).

It would be more convenient the other way, but I feel this is right.


- You have received mail from Quebec. my beard will eat your mustache.
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush