============================== CFJ 2027 ==============================
The Notary is the recordkeepor of public contracts.
Called by Machiavelli: 22 Jun 2008 22:53:10 GMT
Assigned to omd: 23 Jun 2008 00:04:16 GMT
omd recused: 12 Jul 2008 15:29:24 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 12 Jul 2008 15:43:23 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523: 15 Jul 2008 18:55:38 GMT
Appealed by omd: 16 Jul 2008 01:09:16 GMT
Appealed by woggle: 16 Jul 2008 01:47:34 GMT
Appealed by Quazie: 16 Jul 2008 01:53:25 GMT
Appeal 2027a: 16 Jul 2008 01:53:25 GMT
OVERRULED to TRUE on Appeal: 15 Aug 2008 22:01:56 GMT
"Recordkeepor" is a rule-defined word, and it is only
defined for assets, so the rules don't define who the recordkeepor of
a contract is.
For non-assets, "recordkeepor" could be considered an alternate
spelling of "recordkeeper". However, rule 754 says that a difference
in spelling is inconsequential "as long as the difference does not
create an ambiguity in meaning", and this difference certainly does
create an ambiguity in meaning: it is ambiguous whether "recordkeepor"
is meant to refer exclusively to the term itself as it is defined by
the rules or also to the actual English word "recordkeeper" as it is
commonly used. Therefore, rule 754 stays out of this, so
"recordkeepor" means "recordkeepor", not "recordkeeper".
Judge ais523's Arguments:
I will take the caller's arguments in turn.
> "Recordkeepor" is a rule-defined word, and it is only
> defined for assets, so the rules don't define who the recordkeepor of
> a contract is.
I've checked the ruleset, and this is correct. Note, however, that rule
e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which
some player is required to be a recordkeepor. Such an action
CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the
which cares about the recordkeepor of information, not the recordkeepor
of assets. There is a bit of a fundamental mismatch here; assets are not
information (although the amount of assets that people hold is). Rule
2166 states that "The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity
defined as such by its backing document."; likewise, other definitions
of recordkeepors define the recordkeepor of an asset, not of information
> For non-assets, "recordkeepor" could be considered an alternate
> spelling of "recordkeeper". However, rule 754 says that a difference
> in spelling is inconsequential "as long as the difference does not
> create an ambiguity in meaning", and this difference certainly does
> create an ambiguity in meaning: it is ambiguous whether "recordkeepor"
> is meant to refer exclusively to the term itself as it is defined by
> the rules or also to the actual English word "recordkeeper" as it is
> commonly used. Therefore, rule 754 stays out of this, so
> "recordkeepor" means "recordkeepor", not "recordkeeper".
The question here is about what "recordkeepor" means in the statement of
the CFJ. A quick Google search shows that the only uses of the word
"recordkeepor" on the Internet are with reference to Agora Nomic. The
Agora definition only seems to exist with respect to assets (rule 2166);
rule 2125(e) therefore appears to be entirely ineffective (this is what
my proposal above was about). As this is the only definition of
"recordkeepor" that exists anywhere, and it seems to be somewhat
different from the english word "recordkeeper", I rule that the two
words are in fact different due to rule 754 (two similarly-spelt words
can have entirely different meanings), and as there are currently no
entities which are both public contracts and assets, all current public
contracts are intrinsically incapable of having a recordkeepor (at
least, with the curent rules). Therefore, there is no recordkeepor of
public contracts (the phrase itself is an oxymoron), and therefore I
Appellant omd's Arguments:
I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support. If being a
recordkeepor for information is not defined, then it is equivalent to
being a recordkeeper for it. No Agoran rule attempts to define the
Appellant woggle's Arguments:
I support this.
The judgment makes a distinction between being a "recordkeepor of information
(about X)" and "recordkeepor of X". There is no such distinction, since
records are inherently information.