============================== CFJ 1755 ==============================
message <46F75B65.email@example.com> had the effect of resolving
the Agoran decision on proposals 5224
Called by Zefram: 28 Sep 2007 20:44:37 GMT
Assigned to Wooble: 28 Sep 2007 20:48:54 GMT
Judged TRUE by Wooble: 29 Sep 2007 01:09:49 GMT
The message in question, sent by Murphy, begins thus:
|I believe I am still the vote collector for Proposals up through
|5235. If the AFO is the vote collector, then I cause it to
|publish the following.
E does not explicitly say what e does if, as e believed, the AFO was
not the vote collector. E has argued that in that case e published the
following voting results emself. However, I think that cannot occur
implicitly. I think that this controlling paragraph makes the entire
following report subordinate to the context that it supplies. If the
AFO was the vote collector then Murphy clearly caused it to publish the
report, but if not then the controlling paragraph does not say that e
does anything, and in particular it affords no significance at all to
the following report. I believe that publication of the report is in
this case conditional on the AFO being the vote collector, and otherwise
the apparent publication was entirely disclaimed by the initial paragraph.
On the question of the AFO being the vote collector, I don't see any
rule preventing the vote collector on an Agoran decision changing
between initiation and resolution. R2137's "The Assessor is the
default vote collector ..." seems, at face value, to indicate that
at the time in question the vote collector on P5224 was the assessor,
namely the AFO. If the judge of this CFJ agrees with this reasoning
then e can of course judge TRUE without having to consider the merits
of the implicit-publication issue.
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
The fact that person X sent message Y
exists independently of the rules. The rules do not deny this
fact unless some rule-recognized body of text specifies a
constructive legal fiction (e.g. "under these conditions,
contract Z sent message Y") that conflicts with it, according
to the implicit assumption that a message has only one sender.
Judge Wooble's Arguments:
I'm unable to decide from the rule whether a former Assessor should or
should not remain the vote collector for Agoran decisions initiated
before the office change hands. However, in this case the former
Assessor deregistered before the decisions were initiated.
I hold that Rule 1698's protection of the proposal system means that
the vote collector for a vote on proposals must actually be bound by
Rule 208's requirement that e resolve the decisons in the proper
fashion. Since Murphy ceased to be bound by the rules when e
deregistered than e must necessarily have ceased to be the vote
collector for these decisions if e still was up until that point.
Since Rule 208 requires that an Agoran decision have exactly one vote
collector and Rule 2137 makes the Assessor the default vote collector,
the AFO must have become the vote collector either when e became
Assessor or when Murphy ceased to be vote collector. I will refrain
from issuing an opinion regarding at which of these times the AFO
actually became the vote collector for the decisions in question, as
it's irrelevant. E was the vote collector at the time e was cased to
publish the message resolving the decisions, ergo they were resolved
with that message.