DIS: [Ribbon] Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3927 Assigned to Telna
On Sun, 2021-09-05 at 15:16 +1000, Telna via agora-business wrote: > The document that this CFJ is about does not purport to be a report - in > fact, it explicitly purports not to be one. This means that we cannot > assume that a list of stones contained within is in fact a list of all > stones. Can we get this information from elsewhere in the document? > Well... we do not know. This CFJ is a hypothetical, and the document > being posited does not exist in reality. Without being able to view its > exact form, we cannot know whether the list of all stones would purport > to be a list of all stones. This results in the case being ultimately > undecidable. Accordingly, I see no other choice but to DISMISS. I was interested primarily in the case where it clearly was a list of all stones, but you answered that already. So I'm satisfied with this judgement, as it answered my question, and I apologise for unintentionally leaving that important point unclear. I award Telna a Blue Ribbon. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] I need a holiday + maybe a final reporting duty
On 9/4/21 15:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > I think it's more likely that it's an untracked switch. But here: > >> The Mad Engineer is an office; its holder is responsible for >> building and maintaining the Device. The device is a singleton >> switch with values off (default) and on. > I could see a judge making the following arguments: the device is defined > as a switch. The engineer's duties include "maintaining the device". > That must mean something. The only reasonable sort of maintenance to do > on a switch is to track it, therefore tracking it is one of eir duties. I think it's certainly not untracked. G. is responsible for tracking it in either case due to R2603: Rule 2603/0 (Power=1) Switch Responsiblity For each type of switch which would otherwise lack an officer to track it, and is not defined as untracked, there exists an imposed office named “Tracker of [switch name]” that is responsible for tracking that switch. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] I need a holiday + maybe a final reporting duty
On 9/4/2021 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > [I'm not sure if the following is part of weekly duties or not, likely not > but who knows] > > Mad Engineer's Weekly Device Report: The device is currently off. > Wanted to expand on this comment. I think it's more likely that it's an untracked switch. But here: > The Mad Engineer is an office; its holder is responsible for > building and maintaining the Device. The device is a singleton > switch with values off (default) and on. I could see a judge making the following arguments: the device is defined as a switch. The engineer's duties include "maintaining the device". That must mean something. The only reasonable sort of maintenance to do on a switch is to track it, therefore tracking it is one of eir duties. It's further complicated by this later on: > This intent announcement counts as the Mad Engineers's weekly report. which is (I think?) the only place a report is actually defined as a specific thing (as opposed to the rules defining "parts of reports" and leaving us to infer that the sum total of the parts is a "report"). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Stonemason] September Collection Notice
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 10:43 PM ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > On Sat, 2021-09-04 at 01:23 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > I hereby publish the following collection notice (NOT a self- > > ratifying stone report): > > > > All stones are owned by Agora, and are thus immune. No escape choices > > are necessary. > > CFJ: If the above-quoted message had explicitly listed the types of > stones that exist (and otherwise contained the same information), then > despite the disclaimer, it would have been self-ratifying. > > Evidence: The above-quoted message. > > Arguments: Most triggers for self-ratification in the rules require the > thing that self-ratifies to purport to be something, e.g. a Ribbons > report self-ratifies only if it's purporting to be a Ribbons report. > However, assets are a separate case; rule 2166 states that the > recordkeepor's report lists all instances of the class of assets and > their owners, and that portion of the report is self-ratifying. In > other words, the trigger is whether something *is* an asset report, not > whether it *purports to be* one. > > The Stonemason's only weekly duty, as far as I can tell, is to be "the > recordkeepor of stones". As such, I think any listing, published by the > Stonemason, of what stones exist and who their owners are is a > Stonemason weekly report by definition, even if it claims not to be. > (Specifically, I think the hypothetical collection notice posited by > the CFJ would be sufficient to satisfy the requirement in rule 2143 to > perform the officekeepor's weekly duties.) > > As a side note: the actual message did not list what stones existed, > which I think is sufficient to make it not count as a weekly report; I > can't find anything in the rules that requires all the defined stones > to exist (they're indestructible but nothing forces them to have been > created in the first place). So this means, sadly, that I have to put a > hypothetical in the statement to prevent the CFJ ending up with an > obvious result on a technicality. CFJ 3798 contains a recent [1] and fairly comprehensive summary of what a document needs to do to be a report, but at a glance I don't think it unambiguously resolves this question. [1] January 2020, so recent by Agoran standards. -Aspen
