Index ← 3797 CFJ 3798 3799 → text
===============================  CFJ 3798  ===============================

      I published a Referee report today.


Caller:                        twg
Barred:                        Alexis

Judge:                         G.
Judgement:                     TRUE



Called by twg:                                    24 Jan 2020 17:09:47
Assigned to G.:                                   26 Jan 2020 03:05:45
Judged TRUE by G.:                                09 Feb 2020 00:11:52


Caller's Evidence:

I wrote to BUS at 16:44 UTC on 2020-01-24:
> I impose Summary Judgement by levying a fine of 1 blot on myself (twg).
> The specific reason for this fine is that it is setting up the
> conditions for a CFJ.

I wrote to OFF at 17:05 UTC on 2020-01-24:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>               The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This report:
>   Published:      2020-01-24
>   Accurate as of: 2020-01-20 00:00
> Last report:
>   Published:      2020-01-14
>   Accurate as of: (publication)
> (all times UTC)
> BLOT HOLDINGS                                            (self-ratifies)
> ========================================================================
> Blots    Player
> -----    ------
>   2      nch
> No fugitives exist.

Caller's Arguments:

This CFJ is extremely similar to CFJ 3792, except without the technicality 
that caused it to be judged FALSE.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

The Rules do not explicitly define “Officer’s Reports”.  Rather, various rules
define specific pieces/types of information as being “part of” an Officer’s
Report (for simplicity, I’m going to assume we’re talking about Weekly reports
throughout).  R2143 says:
      An official duty for an office is any duty that the Rules
      specifically assign to that office's holder in particular
      (regardless of eir identity).
      If any information is defined by the rules as part of that
      person's weekly report, then e SHALL maintain all such
      information, and the publication of all such information is
      part of eir weekly duties.

From this, it is reasonable to infer that publishing all of the rules-defined
parts [0] of a person’s report, that are assigned to em due to em being a
particular officer, constitutes publishing that Officer’s Report.  But what
are the requirements of accuracy and timeliness for each individual “part” of
the report, in order for it to constitute a report?

The key requirements are “maintain information” and “publish information”.  By
common definition, to publish information means that the publication must be
informative.  In an Agoran context, that means:

* Each part must purport to contain the full set of information that is
rules-defined as being that portion of the report [1];

* Each part must be reasonably-well labelled (so we are informed as to what it
is) [2];

* The information defined for that part must be fully published (no links
allowed) within a single document [3].

* As time is an important external input and governing factor for Agora [4],
information (to be informative) must be clear as to the date and time on which
it implies.   In the absence of a clear date label within the message, this
refers to the date of the publication message, but any clearly specified
past[5] date would qualify.

The above meets the criteria for “publishing” information.  But in addition to
publishing, the requirement is to “maintain” the information.  “Maintenance”
means to keep a report in a certain state of accuracy, and in this case, the
standard for maintenance is in the Rule itself: each part must be up-to-date
to within the time frame specified for the report (e.g. to the current week
for weekly).  As long as the specified date (the moment of publication or the
specified past date) is within the time window, and each part of the report
meets the standards for accuracy set forth by precedent [6] for the facts on
that specified date, the criteria of maintenance is met.

The report in question satisfies these criteria, so it is the report it claims
to be.  TRUE.

[0] found that an
officer’s report is generally limited to elements that the Rules explicitly
define to be part of that officer’s report.

[1] found that each
rules-defined “part of a report” (e.g. a full list of values for a particular
switch) is the minimum divisible unit, that must be contained wholly within a
single document, to purport to be that part of the report.

[2] Information is not information, if we don’t know what information it’s
supposed to be, so some kind of label is needed.

[3] CFJ 3645 found, without much analysis, that publishing a link to
information would be sufficient.  But it ignored the standing precedent, where
CFJ 3410 found, on a plain reading of R2143, that a requirement "publish all
such information" means - well - that you actually need to publish the
information.  While CFJ 3645 is more recent, it ignored the standing precedent
without discussion, and is against the plain reading of rules text.
Therefore, this case finds that CFJ 3645 was an inappropriate judgement and
CFJ 3410 should remain the standing precedent - no links allowed.

[4] See on the
importance of time as a fundamental (external) governing factor in Agora.

[5] found that
future-dated reports are inaccurate by nature (too inaccurate to be considered
a report).

[6] In  Judge Aris
wrote: “the standard is that the purported report has to exhibit gross
sloppiness and negligence, equivalent in severity to lying in the report or
not publishing it” in order to fail to qualify as a report.