=============================== CFJ 3573 ===============================
G. was the speaker from September 28, 2017 to October 2 2017.
Caller: V.J. Rada
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
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 This report had been updated to mark which reports are out of date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
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.