============================== CFJ 2632 ==============================
The Conductor CAN publish a self-ratifying report.
Called by Walker: 10 Jul 2009 18:42:20 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra: 16 Jul 2009 08:16:00 GMT
Judged TRUE by Pavitra: 16 Jul 2009 08:32:36 GMT
Nothing in R2126 states that the Conductor CAN publish a
self-ratifying report, only that e SHALL.
The Conductor is an office. As soon as possible after this text
becomes a part of this rule, the Conductor SHALL publish a
self-ratifying report containing the total number of Notes each
player held the moment before this text became a part of this
rule. After this report has self-ratified, and at least one
proposal has been made distributable using a card, any player
CAN cause this rule to repeal itself by announcement.
Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:
Nowhere in the rules does it say e CANNOT either, and so R101 says that
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
The important point is that the Conductor is not doing the ratifying.
That's what the "self-" means. So "SHALL publish a self-ratifying
report" can be read as "SHALL publish a report" (which e CAN do,
trivially) and that report, after being published, will self-ratify
as the rule grants it the property of self-ratification (if not CoEd
etc.) No one would generally argue that "The Conductor SHALL publish
a report; this report is self-ratifying" would work, and "self-
ratifying report" is simply a contraction of that. -G.
Judge Pavitra's Arguments:
The key question is whether the "'SHALL do X by mechanism Y' implies
'CAN do X by mechanism Y and SHALL do X'" precedent applies here. For
succinctness, at the risk of creating a new fallacy, I will refer to
this precedent as ISTIC (I Shall Therefore I Can).
ISTIC functions by empowering an otherwise ordinary public message. What
would otherwise be simply a player publishing "I do X" instead becomes
an instance of the player doing X. It grants the substance of legal
fiction to mere text.
Consider the hypothetical rule-text "The Conductor SHALL publish a
report." Clearly ISTIC applies here; the Conductor publishes a document
claiming to be a report, and the rule confers reporthood upon that
document, with all the Rule-defined consequences that derive from it
(e.g., whether the Conductor receives a salary).
I see no fundamental difference of type between the state of being a
report and the state of being self-ratifying. Both are properties of a
document defined by the rules, and existing wholly as legal fictions. I
can conceive of no reasonable standard by which ISTIC should apply to
one and not to the other.