Index ← 3916 CFJ 3917 3918 → text
===============================  CFJ 3917  ===============================

      Trigon fulfilled eir obligation to track the Unit of Flotation for
      the weeks of 31 May and 7 Jun.

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

Caller:                        Trigon

Judge:                         G.
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by Trigon:                                 17 Jun 2021 04:44:46
Assigned to G.:                                   17 Jun 2021 06:33:06
Judged FALSE by G.:                               17 Jun 2021 15:47:49

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

Caller's Arguments:

On 6/16/2021 9:44 PM, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
> On 17/06/2021 04:41, Trigon via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 17/06/2021 04:15, Rebecca Lee via agora-official wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:08 PM Telna via agora-business <
>>> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>>> *sigh*
>>>> I Point my Finger at Trigon for not tracking the Unit of Flotation in
>>>> eir weekly report for the week beginning June 7th as directed by Rule
>>>> 2635 "Floating Rate Fleet".
>>>> I Point my Finger at Trigon for not tracking the Unit of Flotation in
>>>> eir weekly report for the week beginning May 31st as directed by Rule
>>>> 2635 "Floating Rate Fleet".
>>>>
>>>
>>> I hereby investigate both of these finger pointings.
>>>
>>> Trigon did indeed violate rule 2635 (implemented in rule 2143) by failing
>>> to track this information in documents that purported to be Treasuror's
>>> reports. E did so in both weeks, which are within the statute of
>>> limitations (the deadline for the week of May 31 expired 12 days ago on
>>> June 6).
>>>
>>> I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on Trigon for not tracking the Unit of
>>> Flotation for the week of May 31st. Although there's no Class of crime 
>>> here
>>> I find it exceedingly similar to the Class-2 crime of Tardiness. The 
>>> crime
>>> is inadvertent and appears to be a simple lack of knowledge of exactly 
>>> what
>>> e had to track (Trigon has generally done a great job of officer accuracy
>>> and timeliness). I impose a 1 blot fine on Trigon.
>>>
>>> I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on Trigon for not tracking the Unit of
>>> Flotation for the week of June 7th. I levy a 1 blot fine on Trigon, see
>>> above.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, the Unit of Flotation is tracked in the Treasuror's weekly 
>> report. Admittedly, it's not next to the Total Buoyancy, as one might 
>> expect, but it is in there, in the History section, at the beginning of 
>> each month:
>>
>>> *** Tue 1 June 2021 ...
>>> [00:00]   RELEVELING: TB=35779, UF=14.0000 
>>
>> This might not be enough, however, since this is the History section's 
>> header:
>>
>>> RECENT HISTORY                                    (does not self-ratify)
>>> ========================================================================
>>
>> The labels on the right side have always been intended to be 
>> informational; however, I admit that it's not one hundred percent clear 
>> what these do legally.
>>
>> I accept that I should put these things in a better location, and I 
>> apologize for the elision of the information. I will include it in 
>> future reports. In my defense, the bit requiring that I track the UF is 
>> in a weird place.
>>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge G.'s Arguments:

CFJ 3798 found that for information to be published in the performance of
a weekly duty, it must be "informative".  Part of that standard was:

> * Each part must be reasonably-well labelled (so we are informed as to
> what it is) [2];
> [2] Information is not information if we don’t know what information
> it’s supposed to be, so some kind of label is needed.

A buried abbreviation UF that does not appear in the rules and is buried
in a history section without explanation, in what looks like a generic
self-check script output, does not fulfill this requirement.

On timeliness, CFJ 3798 allowed for some backdating, but stated that it
would fail to qualify as being "maintained" if it was backdated much
outside the frequency of the report.  So in the May 31 report, the May 1
record is too old to be considered "maintained" for a weekly duty.

The real question is, does missing a single record of this nature
disqualify the whole report?  For example, if an officer failed to list a
new player on a list of players, it would be subject to CoE but still
would have fulfilled a reporting duty.  CFJ 3462 set a high standard
("gross sloppiness and negligence") for disqualifying a reasonable report
attempt from being a duty-fulfilling report.

So what about in this case?  The caller noted:
> In my defense, the bit requiring that I track the UF is
> in a weird place.
By this, I believe that e means that most of the "floating economy"
variables are defined in R2634, while the Unit of Floatation is in
standalone rule 2635.

However, this actually works against the caller.  If UF were listed
alongside the other Buoyancy numbers, we might say "e missed one out of
three quantities, and the one e missed can be calculated from the others -
it's mostly there" and allow it.  However, since it's in a standalone
rule, it's singled out for special attention.  It's not the officer's
place to necessarily decide the importance - the fact that there's a
standalone requirement, in a separate rule (and, I note in the SLR,
immediately following the first rule, so not particularly hidden) means
that a whole "section" of the report is missing, even if that's only a
single (labelled) number.

While the rules can be tricky and missing little things can be common,
officers should generally be knowledgeable on the plain-text duties of
their office - so in this case, missing that whole section *is* in fact
negligence.  A minor, accidental, and inconsequential kind of negligence,
to be sure, especially given the difficulty of the Treasuror's job and H.
Treasuror Trigon's high level and quality of past service, but still
negligent enough to disqualify the report.

I find FALSE.

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