Index ← 3257 CFJ 3258 3259 → text
==============================  CFJ 3258  ==============================

    The message in which this CFJ was initiated is the
    Ambassador-At-Large's Weekly Report.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by ais523:                       30 Jul 2012 21:54:11 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         23 Aug 2012 15:40:22 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     24 Aug 2012 19:46:06 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

At current, the amount of information required in the
Ambassador-At-Large's report is zero, and thus, an Ambassador's Report
can contain any information required. This message is sent to a-o and is
in the usual format expected for a report, but has no actual
report-related information at all, it's all about a CFJ. So do I fulfil
my Ambassador duties by posting it?

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 05:48 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 21:21 -0700, omd wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> > > All Recognition switches are at their default values.
> >
> > You're not actually required to publish this:
> >
> >       c) Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances
> >          of that switch.  That officer's report includes the value of
> >          each instance of that switch whose value is not its default
> >          value.
>
> People yelled at me last time I failed to publish a zero-length report,
> even when I cunningly mixed it in with other messages.
>
> So I'm putting some not-strictly-required info into the report to give
> it a positive length, and thus making it more clearly visible.

(Note: this message contains a CFJ.)

CFJ: The message in which this CFJ was initiated is the
Ambassador-At-Large's Weekly Report.

Arguments:
At current, the amount of information required in the
Ambassador-At-Large's report is zero, and thus, an Ambassador's Report
can contain any information required. This message is sent to a-o and is
in the usual format expected for a report, but has no actual
report-related information at all, it's all about a CFJ. So do I fulfil
my Ambassador duties by posting it?

--
ais523
Ambassador-At-Large

========================================================================

Judge G.'s Arguments:

First, the message in question was not, as the Caller contends, "the
usual format expected for a report" (despite being sent to Agora-
Official and with the [Ambassador] tag).  That's the usual format for
some kind of official action or official announcement (e.g. announcing
a successful Ambassadorial mission), or even a CFJ that revolves around
clarifying one's official duties (which is what it actually was).  So
that's not enough to make the message a report.  The subject line, in
fact, implies that it *isn't* a report, but some other type of official
action.

Now, "Report" is not specifically defined in the Ruleset as a whole.
R2143/15 defines that anything that is "part" of a report must be
published with a certain frequency and that reports (as a whole) must
be in plaintext, and Rule 2202/4 strongly implies that parts of reports
are documents, which are part (or all) of a public message.
So, with no definition, we go to common definitions and common sense,
and find that a "report" is "an account or statement" or "formal
record."

This brings up a few points:

1.  A null (empty) statement is not a report.  If we assumed otherwise,
    we would have to treat every message posted as a report of
    everything in the world that isn't.  Also, an empty set is not
    plaintext (an empty set is not the same as a null string!).
2.  Context (e.g. delimitation) is reasonable to expect to frame a
    part of a document as a report or part of a report (to make it a
    "formal record" one must be clear about where one is being formal).
3.  The rules implicitly require some information be reported, in
    addition to explicit requirements.  For example, in R2162/2:
                         That officer's report includes the value of
         each instance of that switch whose value is not its default
         value.
    Note, here, that only the "value" is listed, but not the entity for
    each switch!  Taken directly and literally, a report might look like
    this: "Inactive,Active,Inactive,Active,Active" or just "3xActive,
    1xInactive".  Clearly, more information is required; that is, it is
    reasonably implicit that the report must include the identity of
    each switch that is being reported on (e.g. "G. Active; BobTHJ
    Inactive").

Therefore, it is reasonable to decide that if a "part of a report" that
is required, but happens to be empty, the rules implicitly require that
the report be explicitly delimited as containing all of the information
required, or else state that "there is no required information for this
part of the report" in order to fulfill reporting duties.  FALSE.

========================================================================