Index ← 3572 CFJ 3573 3574 → text
===============================  CFJ 3573  ===============================

      G. was the speaker from September 28, 2017 to October 2 2017.


Caller:                        V.J. Rada

Judge:                         Alexis
Judgement:                     TRUE



Called by V.J. Rada:                              09 Oct 2017 02:36:25
Assigned to Alexis:                               13 Oct 2017 20:25:11
Judged TRUE by Alexis:                            13 Oct 2017 21:31:59


Arbitor's Note:

A succession of CFJ-call attempts and retractions lost the context and 
Caller's Arguments, this was a question of whether the Ratification of the 
Oct 2 ADoP report with Quazie as Speaker removed G. from that office.


Judge Alexis's Arguments:

I admit that I am perplexed about the exact intent behind this CFJ, 
because it concerns the time period before the ratification, not the time 
period after. Nevertheless, I will do my best to judge it.

The facts: VJ Rada appointed G. to Speaker on September 27. On September 
30, VJ Rada published an erroneous ADoP report listing Quazie as Speaker 
since August 26. Per Rule 2162, the portion of an ADoP's report listing 
the current officeholders for each office is self-ratifying. No other 
portion of the report is, however.

The report of September 30 contained another error: nichdel was listed as 
Assessor. The same day, PSS submitted a claim of error on this error, 
though not the one regarding Speaker. This doubted the report. VJ Rada 
promptly published a revised report, before making a claim of error 
against the revised report that it had the wrong date of the previous 
report, publishing a second revised report. G. subsequently discovered a 
third error: e had resigned Tailor and was erroneously listed as still 
holding the office. E issued a claim of error against the second revised 
report, doubting it.

On October 1, VJ Rada accepted G's CoE and published a third revised 
report. This report had been updated to mark which reports are out of date 
(note: this reporting is not required by rules), but erroneously listed 
the Reportor's report as missed due to a rules interpretation. 天火狐, the 
Reportor, issued a CoE which VJ Rada accepted. E published a fourth 
revision, followed by eir own discovery that the FLR was not late, leading 
to a fifth CoE and revision. At this point, the situation regarding CoEs 
becomes unclear, due to multiple CoEs that did not identify specific 
errors, and VJ Rada attempted to revert to a previous revision, publishing 
it by announcing e did so rather than typing out the full report.

On October 2, VJ Rada published an a new report, incorporating many of the 
above fixes plus unincorporating some, but still erroneously listing 
Quazie as Speaker. The October 2 report was continuously undoubted for 1 
week, and subsequently self-ratified on October 9. This had the effect of 
changing the game state to what it would have been if the officeholder 
list had been correct (Rules 1551 and 2201). The date from which Quazie 
was listed as holding the office is not self-ratifying (Rule 2162 
specifies that only the switch itself is), and so there is no ratification 
of that.

It is clear, therefore, that Quazie was Speaker on October 9, after the 
self-ratification took effect. What about before that, however? It is not 
clear to me at all that one of VJ Rada's earlier reports did not self-
ratify. Many CoEs were issued against the various revisions, but there are 
a few key points which bear attention:

a) Each revision was published (or purportedly published, in some cases) 
as a full report, rather than as a simple list of corrections. These 
revisions appear, on the face of it, to purport to be ADoP's reports and 
therefore trigger self-ratification (Rule 2162). The "final" report of 
October 2 certainly does, so there should be no question of it self-
b) The documents in question which self-ratify are, per Rule 2162 again, 
only the part of the report listing the officeholders of the various 
offices self-ratify. Documents being defined by Rule 1551, it must be the 
case that the entire report is self-ratifying, nor is any part that is not 
exactly the self-ratifying part as defined by Rule 2162, such as some 
portion of the report that lists all officeholders and additional 
information, or a part which lists some but not all officeholders.
c) A valid CoE must identify a document (Rule 2201). While game custom 
certainly holds that such a document can be identified implicitly, it is 
not clear whether a CoE which implicitly or explicitly identifies a 
document other than a self-ratifying one is capable of establishing a 
doubt. My inclination, however, is that the CoE must allege an error in 
the self-ratifying document in order to establish a doubt. If this is 
true, then a CoE against a full report can doubt a portion of that report 
if the CoE identifies an error in that portion, but that a CoE that 
identifies an error in another portion of the report is not strong enough 
to establish a doubt.
d) The above borne in mind, it is quite possible that VJ Rada's first 
revision of the list of officeholders, against which the only CoE was that 
the date of the previous report was wrong, self-ratified as well. The 
subsequent doubts would not have mattered, since they were made against 
other reports, and ratification clearly applies to a document rather than 
a piece of information contained within.

Fortunately, the questions I raise above do not need answering. The 
earliest erroneous report was September 27, so the earliest it could have 
ratified was October 4. Thus, G. must have been Speaker at least until 
then, meaning that I find the CFJ to be TRUE.