============================== CFJ 1758 ==============================
Murphy was the vote collector for the Agoran decision on whether to
adopt Proposal 5222 as of the publication of Message-id:
Called by Murphy: 30 Sep 2007 23:09:08 GMT
Assigned to Zefram: 01 Oct 2007 09:29:05 GMT
Judged FALSE by Zefram: 03 Oct 2007 11:25:34 GMT
At the start of Proposal 5222's voting period, then-Assessor Murphy
was the vote collector (Rule 2137). Rule 208 specifies that the
decision always has exactly one vote collector. No rule explicitly
removed em from this role; in particular, neither Rule 2137 nor any
other rule specifies that the position of vote collector moves with
the Assessorship, and no rule specifies that the vote collector must
be a player.
root points out that this violates the spirit of Rule 101 (viii), but
I believe it fails to violate the letter. I suggest amending Rules
101 and 1504 to clarify that the rules cannot directly impose
obligations on non-players, but can generally define the gamestate
with respect to their existence, actions and inactions. (In
particular, the rules cannot make it ILLEGAL for an exiled or
recently deregistered person to register, but can and do make it
Indirect obligations arising from contracts are a debatable point. As
Zefram points out, these have been decoupled from playerhood, at least
in principle. Agora can be, and at times has been, considered as a
contract (between all players to obey the rules) that one can leave at
will, but must this ability extend to all other contracts recognized
and judged by Agora?
I also suggest legislation clarifying what happens to positions with
obligations, such as vote collector, when its holder deregisters. (In
the specific case of an office, Rule 1006 specifies that it is either
vacant or held by a player, so the natural interpretation is that it
becomes vacant. However, as previously noted, the position of vote
collector does not necessarily move with the office from which it
Judge Zefram's Arguments:
The vote collector for the Agoran decision on whether to adopt a proposal
is determined by rule 2137/1:
# The Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran
# decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.
On the face of it, therefore, the vote collector at the time in question
was the assessor, namely the AFO. Initiator notes that no rule explicitly
specifies that the position of vote collector moves when the assessorship
does, but practice has always been that official duties do move with
the office. The concept of office wouldn't be worth much if they didn't.
Furthermore, per CFJ 1702 the office has some existence independent
of its holder, so it could perhaps be said that the vote collector is
always the office of assessor, and a change of officeholder doesn't imply
a change of vote collector. I do not rely on that argument, however.
I will now examine the issues involved in a change of vote collector.
To prevent rule 2137 making assessor AFO the vote collector, there
would have to be some conflicting provision taking precedence over it.
The initiator points to rule 208/4, which certainly takes precedence:
# Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.
Initiator argues that this ties the position of vote collector to
an individual person, specifically (for proposals) the person who
was assessor when the Agoran decision was initiated. It seems to
me that that's not what the rules say. Rule 208 doesn't say that
the vote collector can only be one person across all time. The usual
interpretation of such rule provisions is as an instantaneous constraint.
That is, each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector *at any
particular time*. Having vote collection duties move from one person
to another does not violate this constraint.
When the Agoran decision on proposal 5222 was initiated, its vote
collector was assessor Murphy. At the time in question in this CFJ,
its vote collector was assessor AFO. Rule 208 has been continuously