============================== CFJ 3518 ==============================
When a player performs a dependent action, e is the recordkeepor
of supporters and/or objectors to the action, for the purposes of
Called by G.: 29 May 2017
Assigned to ais523: 29 May 2017
Judged FALSE by ais523: 05 Jun 2017
Does this clause of R1728:
The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on
mean that the actor is "required to be a recordkeepor" of supporters
and/or objectors, for the purpose of R2125:
An action is regulated if: [...] (3) the action would,
as part of its effect, modify information for which some player
is required to be a recordkeepor.
If so, supporting and objecting to an action would modify the record,
and supporting/objecting (and withdrawal of same) would be regulated
Argument for FALSE:
"Should" isn't really a requirement, it's a suggestion.
Argument for TRUE:
The SHOULD means the person, by R2152, should understand and carefully
weigh the reasons for not publishing the lists of supporters/objectors.
It's not possible to understand the consequences of not doing so without
tracking them (in particular, the consequences of incorrectly attempting
to perform the action). And a weak requirement (a "should report", not
a "must report") is still a requirement.
If I remember correctly, "recordkeepor" was at one point defined in the
rules. Currently, there are only two uses: in rule 2125, and rule 2438
(which defines the Tailor as the recordkeepor of Ribbons). Rule 2438
immediately goes on to define the Tailor as tracking the Ribbon switch
in eir monthly report, which fits the previous and common usage of
"recordkeepor" (as the player who is responsible for reporting on a
specific subset of the gamestate).
Does rule 1728 create a recordkeepor-like obligation? I don't think so.
As worded, the rule doesn't imply "MUST track, and SHOULD publish"; it
just says "SHOULD publish". One plausible reason for not publishing a
list of supporters and/or objectors is that you weren't tracking them.
(For example, suppose in a quiet period, which has no Agencies or
similar constructs, you intend to perform an action without 3
objections, and only 2 messages are sent to the public fora between the
intent and resolution. It's obvious that the action can be resolved
even if you don't scour the messages in question for objections.)
Another argument for FALSE is that the requirement (if it exists) to
track the lists of supporters and objectors is instantaneous; there's
no requirement to do so after resolving the action (obviously), but
also no requirement to do so beforehand (because you can simply choose
to not resolve your intent). As such, there are no records to update;
you're compiling a list at a specific instant, rather than keeping one
maintained over time. I think this is a weaker argument than the above,
but still easily strong enough to decide the CFJ by itself (implying
that even if rule 1728 had a SHALL not a SHOULD, a dependent actor
still wouldn't be a recordkeepor of support and objection).
I should also note that the above argument implies that the question is
only of academic interest; even if a dependent actor /were/ a
recordkeepor, they would be so only instantaneously, and thus rule 2125
would only make supporting/objecting regulated instantaneously. Given
that support and objection happen /before/ the dependent action, rather
than at the same time as it, rule 2125 can't have any impact on whether
they're possible/legal or not.
Out of interest, does anyone know if the Assessor was ever defined as a
recordkeepor of votes? I don't think this has been the case in any
remotely recent ruleset, even when the recordkeepor concept was widely
used for other offices, but may have been the case in the distant past
back when votes were submitted to the Assessor rather than made
I judge CFJ 3518 FALSE.