============================== CFJ 2615 ==============================
Goethe is the current Grand Poobah
Called by Wooble: 26 Jun 2009 20:21:59 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 27 Jun 2009 17:05:34 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523: 04 Jul 2009 01:36:39 GMT
The message purporting to initiate the Agoran Decision to
choose the holder of the office incorrectly stated that the eligible
voters were the active players. R107 says that such a notice is
INVALID if the incorrect information is "identified" within 1 week of
publication; it does not require publication of this fact. The lack
was identified, and discussed in the IRC discussion forum within 7
days (see evidence below).
Furthermore, R107 does not contain any statement that a notice is
prima facie valid if it's not made INVALID by identifying such a lack.
In fact, while R107 requires a valid notice to be published to start
an election, no rule at all establishes what makes a notice valid,
just what makes one invalid.
Tue Jun 16 20:26:46 UTC 2009:
##nomic :btw, the initiation of the election was invalid anyway.
Tue Jun 16 20:26:50 UTC 2009: :coppro!n=coppro@unaffiliated/coppro
PRIVMSG ##nomic :it was
Tue Jun 16 20:26:52 UTC 2009: :coppro!n=coppro@unaffiliated/coppro
PRIVMSG ##nomic :?
Tue Jun 16 20:27:06 UTC 2009: :coppro!n=coppro@unaffiliated/coppro
PRIVMSG ##nomic :why?
Tue Jun 16 20:27:11 UTC 2009:
##nomic :the list of eligible voters is wrong. more classic criminal
Tue Jun 16 20:27:27 UTC 2009: :coppro!n=coppro@unaffiliated/coppro
PRIVMSG ##nomic :good catch
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
"Indicate" is a transitive verb, taking an object. It should be
considered whether the object is reasonably (or in the best interests
of the game) implied in R107 to be everyone (public) or at the very
least the publisher of the allegedly invalid notice (who is not required
to pay attention to a generally secondary discussion forum), as opposed
to being implied to be anyone at all.
Judge ais523's Arguments:
First, it's pretty clear that 'Goethe' in the CFJ statement refers to
G., who recently changed eir common nickname.
The issue at stake is to determine if the Agoran decision was correctly
initiated, and, if not, whether it could nevertheless be resolved. In
order to initiate an Agoran decision, the relevant person (in this case
the IADoP) must publish a valid notice; the rule goes on to state
conditions under which a notice is invalid, and although the rules are
silent on what constitutes a valid notice it is sensible to assume that
a notice is valid if it is not invalidated by the rules and it is
recognisable as an attempt to initiate an Agoran decision, as opposed to
to do something else. The first relevant point here is that a notice
purporting to initiate a decision is invalid if it fails to describe the
class of eligible voters, and the lack is not identified within seven
days; in this case, a class of persons was described (active players),
but it differed from the class of persons actually required for an
election (active first-class players, when not during an Emergency
Session); the PNP was, at the time, an active player, but not
The evidence provided by Wooble shows that this mistake was noticed
within a week of the election starting; although the invalidity was
noted in a discussion forum, this is nevertheless sufficient to make the
original notice invalid. (In passing, I note that it would make sense to
add 'publicly' at the relevant point in rule 107, or even to introduce a
CoE-style system.) Therefore, the decision was never initiated.
Could the decision thereafter be resolved? Rule 208 implies that the
vote collector CAN resolve a decision that exists (and thus, by R2125,
CANNOT resolve a decision that doesn't unless another rule makes it
POSSIBLE.) Rule 2154 requires that the Agoran Decision in question is
resolved in order to cause a change of officer. Therefore, the only way
that G. could have become the Grand Poobah would be if e were ratified
into the role.
What possible sources of ratification are there? R2134 makes it possible
to self-ratify the existence and resolution of an Agoran Decision.
Wooble CoEd the existence of the decision, thus causing it to fail to
self-ratify; this CoE was denied at 9:42 pm on June 21, thus restarting
the self-ratification timer. CFJ 2615 itself also does not prevent
self-ratification; to be a doubt, it must explicitly identify a
document, and the CFJ doesn't. (The caller's arguments do, but in my
opinion that isn't 'explicit'.) Wooble then CoEd the "resolution" of the
decision later on June 26. This CoE has, to my knowledge, neither been
accepted or denied so far, which is a probable (but easily overlooked
and probably not punishable) rules breach by the IADoP.
It's interesting that R2134 causes two things to self-ratify; the
existence of the decision, and its result. At the moment (realtime), the
existence has self-ratified (despite Wooble's efforts; e CoEd the
existence but it was denied, and e later CoEd the result but did not
re-CoE the existence). This ratification changes the gamestate to what
it would be if the decision had existed, so at 9:42 pm on June 28, G.
became the Grand Poobah (as the resolution of the election would be
correct if it had existed; no second-class players attempted to vote on
it.) However, this court case was called on June 26; at that time, the
self-ratification had not happened, and so the decision had not
resolved. Therefore, I judge FALSE as of the time the CFJ was called on
CFJ 2615 (but TRUE as of now).
Judge ais523's Evidence:
Yally wrote on Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:16:29 -0500:
> I initiate an Agoran decision to decide the holder of the Grand Poobah
> office. The eligible voters are the active players, the vote collector
> is the IADoP, and the valid options are coppro (incumbent), G.,
> Wooble, and PRESENT.