============================== CFJ 2909 ==============================
Wooble is the judge of CFJ 2908.
Called by Wooble: 29 Nov 2010 19:25:39 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 05 Dec 2010 20:15:57 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523: 10 Dec 2010 23:04:40 GMT
(If I deregistered last week) a few minutes ago, the
gamestate was minimally modified such that I was a player a week ago.
My assumption is that this modification consists of flipping my
Citizenship switch and setting my registration date to when the last
Registrar's report was published. I'd guess that in the intervening
time I was not actually a player, and that assigning a case to me (or
performing other actions that would succeed only if I were a player)
was ineffective. However, the rules do not forbid retroactive
changes, and it's possible that "minimally modifying the gamestate"
means simply retroactively making the change. This would not require
substantial recalculation, as I believe most if not all of the public
messages since then acted as if I'd lost my offices as a result of
deregistration but still treated me as a (possible) player in other
respects; c.f. omd attempting to make me a Pope and Murphy assigning
cases to me (in eir case, with a disclaimer).
Gratuitous Arguments by Yally:
If Wooble did, in fact, deregister emelf, then his
publication of the Registrar's Report on 22 November was not valid (as
e was not the Registrar and only players may deputise). Nevertheless,
"The portion of a public message purporting to be a Registrar's report
that lists each player implies that no players other than those listed
exist and is self-ratifying." The question, then, is whether Wooble's
message (where he named emself as "Possibly Registrar" in the subject
line) actually purported to be a Registrar's report.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
The report includes "Wooble possibly deregisters" in the
"Recent events" section, although I don't think this affects anything.
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
In addition, the message in question noted that Wooble
recently "possibly deregistered", though the list of players was
not directly disclaimered.
Gratuitous Evidence by ais523:
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 19:20 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote (in a message
with subject "BUS: I deregister"):
> I resign from all offices I hold, if not.
Judge ais523's Arguments:
CFJ 2909 is rather complicated (and until recently, had no evidence
attached...); there are several factors that affect the decision, so
I'll take them in turn. (Thanks for omd for helping me discuss this in
##nomic; I would transfer a prop from Wooble to omd for lack of evidence
vs. useful discussion, but props can't be transferred from non-players.)
First, I judge that Wooble did in fact deregister when e sent the
message in question. The subject is obviously chosen deliberately; the
", if not" in the message draws attention to the subject (it's crying
out to have more context), and the circumstances at the time made
looking at subjects a pretty obvious thing to do. This follows the
precedent of CFJ 2897, which as far as I can tell was generally accepted
after being reconsidered and rejudged.
Next, we need to consider if the list of players in the report in
question self-ratified. The document in question certainly purported to
be a Registrar's report, despite being sent by a non-player; the
[Possibly Registrar] in the subject only goes further to identify the
document as having the structure and content of a Registrar's report. As
the list of players is the only self-ratifying part, its context is
mostly irrelevant at disclaiming it (and anyway, the rules don't allow
for disclaimers to affect ratification, except very indirectly). So I
think that the list did indeed ratify.
However, ratification seems to be broken at the moment. Here's the
entire content of rule 1551:
A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.
When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is minimally
modified so that the ratified document was completely true and
accurate at the time it was published. Nevertheless, the
ratification of a public document does not invalidate, reverse,
alter, or cancel any messages or actions, even if they were
unrecorded or overlooked, or change the legality of any
Ratifying a public document is secured.
The operative text here is "gamestate is minimally modified". What the
rule is probably /meant/ to say is along the lines of "When a public
document is ratified, the gamestate is changed to what it would be if
the publication of the ratified document had minimally modified the
gamestate so as to make the document completely true and accurate at the
time it was published.", i.e. calculate the effects of a minimal change
in the past, and apply them to the present, including knock-on effects,
etc.. That's not what the rule actually says; it instead tries to work
out a minimal change to the /present/ gamestate to change the past. It's
unclear if a rule can actually change the past or not, but it doesn't
actually matter in this case; if the history of the report in question
is part of the gamestate (and this is an unclear point, depending on the
definition of "gamestate"), then a minimal change to the gamestate would
just change the history, and if the history isn't, then /no/ change to
the gamestate could retroactively make the report have been correct,
thus the rule can't do much but create a legal fiction that it was. In
neither case, though, does Wooble's current playership change.
Thus, I judge CFJ 2909 FALSE, as a non-player cannot be a judge, and
award myself 2 capacitors for that judgement.