Index ← 2610a CFJ 2610 2611 → text
==============================  CFJ 2610  ==============================

    The PerlNomic Partnership was an eligible voter in the recent Grand
    Poobah election.


Caller:                                 Yally

Judge:                                  allispaul
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 2610a
Decision:                               REMAND

Judge:                                  allispaul

Judge:                                  woggle
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Yally:                        21 Jun 2009 21:46:23 GMT
Assigned to allispaul:                  21 Jun 2009 22:56:55 GMT
Judged TRUE by allispaul:               24 Jun 2009 18:48:56 GMT
Appealed by Murphy:                     24 Jun 2009 23:27:13 GMT
Appealed by Yally:                      25 Jun 2009 00:08:59 GMT
Appealed by Wooble:                     26 Jun 2009 23:28:35 GMT
Appeal 2610a:                           26 Jun 2009 23:28:35 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     10 Jul 2009 21:19:15 GMT
Assigned to allispaul:                  10 Jul 2009 21:19:15 GMT
allispaul recused:                      16 Jul 2009 08:30:05 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     16 Jul 2009 08:30:58 GMT
Judged FALSE by woggle:                 19 Jul 2009 07:21:13 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Aaron Goldfein
>>> I resolve the Agoran decision to decide the holder of the Grand Poobah
>> CoE: no such Agoran Decision was initiated.  The purported initiation
>> claimed the eligible voters were the active players, which is
>> incorrect; ergo the initiation was INVALID.
> Oh... I must have missed that rule being changed. Either way denied,
> because there was no objection ever given to the initiation of the
> decision (to my knowledge), and thus it was valid-ish.


Judge allispaul's Arguments:

The notice initating the election was valid, as it wasn't CoE'd
(R107).  However, it's not a document which self-ratified and is
therefore true, it's an action which was valid, though in
contradiction with R2154.  The question is whether its validity causes
it to take the action it specifies.  The court rules TRUE, based on
several factors.  The most important is the use of "valid" elsewhere
in the ruleset.  Typically it means "well-formed," as with a valid
Notice of Violation.  Importantly, a valid Notice of Violation has the
effects it describes.  CFJ 2481 and the associated cases are of note
here: though the NoV's in question were certainly incorrect, they were
valid and had the effect of creating Rests in the possession of
players.  MMI also defines INVALID as synonymous with IMPOSSIBLE.
Since the initiation of the election was valid, it was certainly not
IMPOSSIBLE and thus we must assume that the election, as described,
was initiated.

Note that the initiation of the election was almost certainly ILLEGAL,
breaking the power-2 rule 2154.  This is not within the scope of this
case, nor is the possibility that the addition of second-class players
could have raised quorum so as to make the resolution of the election


Appellant Murphy's Arguments:

I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement.  Yes, the
initiation of the decision was effective, but I don't think that
causes the otherwise-incorrect information accompanying it to
become correct.  Continuing to use valid-but-incorrect NoVs as
a similar example, consider the exact wording of Rule 2230:

  "a number of Rests are created ... equal to the Class of the
   specified Crime"

  No problem here; if the NoV specifies a Crime, then it specifies
  a Crime, and the Rest creation clause doesn't care whether it
  did so incorrectly.

  "or in its absence the Power of the violated rule"

  This is ambiguous; if it said "specified rule" or "rule allegedly
  violated", then it would be unambiguous.  (Of course, any past
  instances of this problem have probably been papered over by now,
  due to self-ratification of the Insulator's report.)


Appellant Wooble's Arguments:

I believe there's serious doubt about the incorrect information
becoming platonically true, plus see my recent CFJ about the validity
of the decision in the first place.


Judge woggle's Arguments:

As Murphy argued on appeal, the incorrect notice being effective due to
not being challenged does necessarily not make it correct again. If we
are to make the purported parameters of the statement initiating the
election be correct, then we are left with a series problem: since the
rules define no Agoran decision with those parameters, it would not have
an effect. For example, in this case, it would not be the Agoran
decision described by R2154, so the effect ("its outcome ... is
installed into the office").

Having such a ineffective Agoran decision would make the R107 pragmatism
"the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is
published" annoyingly ineffective. While a nice resolution to this would
be make the "description of the class of eligible voters" correct as
allispaul concluded, this is not what R107 and R683 allow: both R683 and
R107 defer to other rules, presumably the rule authorizing initiation of
the decision, to define the eligible voters for the decision. No rule
authorized the initiation of a decision with "active players" as the
voters in this case and, in general, no rule would cover other even
trivial misstatements of the eligible voters in this manner.

Thus, the most sensible conclusion is that the notice initiating was
valid (i.e. effective) despite its incorrectness. Fortunately, the only
set of eligible voters the rules allow in an Agoran decision to elect
the Grand Poobah is the active first-class players, so there was no
ambiguity as exactly what decision was initiated.