Re: spoon-business: Appeal: CFJ 688

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/20/02 at 7:17 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>Per rule 404/3, I Appeal CFJ 688.
>
>For analysis (which isn't defined by R404, but nonetheless) I quote the
>following message I sent in reply to BvS:
>#beginquote
>"There is no place where a price tag is put on a glass of Champagne." I
>gather from this that you're saying that one can therefore buy Champagne
>for 0 points, just as one can buy beer for 5 points. However, that is only
>the case because the rules say "Players who are in Limbo can buy Beer for
>five points", which both defines the price and permits the purchase. While
>there is no price defined for Champagne, there is likewise no method of
>purchase defined, and it is therefore impossible under r18 (if you're
>sensible), or rule 393 (otherwise).
>
>Which is not to say your verdict may not be correct, but since you have
>given no evidence that you've even considered my given analysis, I feel
>obliged to send this to a higher court.
>#endquote
>
>The Reality Police.

As a designated member of the Upper House, I rule FALSE on CFJ 688.

Analysis:

Glasses of champagne are described as units of alcoholic beverage.  The class of "alcoholic beverages" has been determined by example in various rules to consist of possessable objects, since there are mechanisms for acquiring, acting upon, and destroying them.  This means the existence, or lack of existence, of said objects is a part of the game state, and therefore changes to the existence of said objects are changes to the game state, which is managed by Rule 393.

Rule 503 defines an action that can be conducted upon a glass of champagne, and also dictates a mechanism for changing its existence (destroying it).  There is no mechanism in that rule for causing a glass of champagne to exist; however, Rule 502 provides a mechanism for the creation of generic alcoholic beverage objects, so glasses of champagne inherit this mechanism.  Thus, the creation and destruction of "glass of champagne" objects is regulated, which means it's covered by Rule 18.

I have seen no evidence to suggest that the number of glasses of champagne Plaintiff claims to have drunk in eir action existed at the time of eir action.  Plaintiff has not proven, or even indicated, that e brought said glasses of champagne into existence prior to eir claiming that e drank them.  Under Rules 18 and 393, eir drinking them does not cause or imply their existence.  Therefore, since drinking a glass of champagne is an action performed on an existing object, and since the objects didn't exist, Plaintiff did not in fact drink them.

Regarding the analysis Plaintiff provided with eir CFJ, I believe it is flawed in that it didn't take into account the properties a glass of champagne inherits from its parent alcoholic beverages class.

Regarding the analysis the original judge, Baron von Skippy, provided, I believe it is flawed in that it assumed purchase was the only means of causing something to exist.

I have said.

						Glotmorf