============================== CFJ 1711 ==============================
Proposal 5085 was adopted on or about Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:25:41
Called by Murphy: 01 Aug 2007 05:53:13 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ: 01 Aug 2007 09:27:04 GMT
BobTHJ recused: 13 Aug 2007 08:56:49 GMT
Assigned to Taral: 13 Aug 2007 08:56:49 GMT
Judged FALSE by Taral: 22 Aug 2007 06:13:55 GMT
Appealed by Zefram: 27 Aug 2007 21:23:25 GMT
Appealed by Murphy: 27 Aug 2007 21:23:25 GMT
Appealed by Wooble: 27 Aug 2007 21:23:25 GMT
Appeal 1711a: 27 Aug 2007 21:23:25 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 07 Oct 2007 22:00:58 GMT
Assigned to Taral: 09 Oct 2007 00:47:11 GMT
Taral recused: 20 Oct 2007 23:12:35 GMT
Assigned to pikhq: 21 Oct 2007 08:54:58 GMT
Judged TRUE by pikhq: 21 Oct 2007 15:57:10 GMT
Appealed by omd: 21 Oct 2007 16:02:00 GMT
Appealed by pikhq: 21 Oct 2007 16:16:45 GMT
Appealed by root: 21 Oct 2007 17:30:49 GMT
Appeal 1711b: 21 Oct 2007 17:33:22 GMT
OVERRULED to FALSE on Appeal: 22 Oct 2007 19:52:24 GMT
On or about Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:31:06 -0700, Assessor Murphy posted a
notice purporting to resolve the Agoran decision of whether to adopt
Proposal 5085. This notice omitted Wooble's votes, but indicated the
correct outcome for the votes (including Wooble's).
On or about Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:25:41 -0700, Murphy published a
correction. This message included Wooble's votes, referred to the other
votes but did not list them, and reiterated the outcome. It also
incorrectly implied that Proposal 5080 was adopted.
On or about Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:25:37 -0700, Murphy published a
comprehensive correction. Note that, if Proposal 5085 was not adopted
until this time, then Zefram did not receive a VC for it (e received a
VC for Proposal 5103 on or about Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:11:19 -0700).
Judge Taral's Arguments:
The second "notice" was the short message including Wooble's votes and
not the others. As much as it may be convenient to allow corrections
of this sort to be used to "fix" a previously incorrect notice, I find
two compelling reasons not to do so. Firstly, this is a final record
of votes whose purpose is to define rule changes. Having a single
accurate and complete record is significantly in the interests of the
game. Secondly, the fact that the message does not quote or even
include a date/message-ID for the message it is correcting runs
significantly counter to the rule's use of "to clearly identify". I
find, therefore, that the second "notice" was also invalid, and judge
CFJ 1711 FALSE.
Judge Taral's Evidence:
Rule 208/3 (Power=3)
Resolving Agoran decisions
The vote collector for a particular Agoran decision is
authorized to resolve that decision, and does so by publishing a
valid notice which states that the matter has been resolved,
indicating the option selected by Agora. To be valid, this
notice must satisfy the following conditions:
(a) It is published after the voting period has ended.
(b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.
(c) It clearly identifies the options available.
(d) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as
described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters'
valid ballots on the various options.
Each Agoran decision shall have at most one vote collector at a
time. The identity of the vote collector is set by the message
initiating the decision, and can only be changed as specified by
other rules with power at least as great as that of this rule.
This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide
another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.
Appellant Zefram's Arguments:
We have commonly accepted a published correction to a prior report as
constituting a new report that incorporates the bulk of the prior report
by reference. In the present case, Murphy's second message applies a
correction in the form of an additional set of votes to insert into the
prior message; it is clear how adding these votes affects the totals,
so I see no need for the revised totals to be included explicitly.
We have considerable history of accepting parts of these messages to
be implicit. Indeed, the assessor's present practice, extending back
past the time that this CFJ is concerned with, is to not explicitly
indicate "ADOPTED", "FAILED QUORUM", and so on, for each proposal, but
to leave that implicit. It can be easily determined by examining the
"AI", "VI", "Quorum", and "Voters" rows, but a strict reading of rule
208 would require it to be stated on a row of its own. Such a strict
reading is contrary to game custom. The lack of an explicit "ADOPTED"
has not been questioned, neither in the resolution notice that this case
is concerned with nor in the surrounding months.
Judge Eris objects that the correcting notice did not give any firm
identification of the original notice which it augmented. That is
incorrect. The correcting message includes a "References:" header,
in which the first item is the message ID of the original notice.
This is a normal place to expect such a reference to be found; it is
not obfuscated in any way. The original message could also be following
the "In-Reply-To:" chain, which also works by message ID; the chain is
of length two in this case, the middle link being Wooble's DF message
which points out the error and quotes the body of the original notice
in its entirety.
Judge Eris's point about message IDs was in support of eir claim that the
correcting notice failed to clearly identify the matters to be resolved.
Even ignoring the reference to the preceding message, the notice stated
that it was concerned with proposals, and identified the proposals
by number. This is precisely the same manner in which the original
(incorrect) notice, and all resolution notices regarding proposals,
identify the matters to be resolved. The judge appears to be mistaken
on a matter of law regarding what it is that must be clearly identified.
Finally, the judge argues that for the interests of the game we should
not permit a resolution notice that does not explicitly list vote totals.
To be explicit there is something that assessors should no doubt consider
good advice, but I suggest that invalidating the notice for the lack is
contrary to the interests of the game.
Judge pikhq's Arguments:
I find this statement TRUE. While the correction itself was *not* a
valid notice, the correction combined with the original incorrect
statement is, obviously, a valid notice of Agora's intent. I suggest,
however, that a formal correction process be adopted, so that this
situation need not pass the courts again.
Appellant omd's Arguments:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this as neither CFJs 1451-2 nor the
various arguments in the first appeal were considered by Judge pikhq.