== CFJ 2027 ==
The Notary is the recordkeepor of public contracts.
We usually treat Rule 754 (1) as broadly as possible, and the
initiator's arguments misleadingly point to a trivial judgement of
TRUE, because recordkeepor and recordkeeper clearly fall under Rule
754 (1). But I don't really think Rule 754 (1) is relevant here.
That would determine whether recordkeepor and recordkeeper mean
the same thing if each term is used in a different place in the
Ruleset. The Rules don't at any point say recordkeeper
specifically; recordkeeper is just what ihope says that the Notary
is.
But it's true that if recordkeepor is a rule-defined word, the
Notary is not the recordkeepor of public contracts, because of Rule
754 (2):
(2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that
meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly
defined by the rules.
For example, since contracts are defined by the Rules, a contract I
make under any legal system besides Agora's is not, to Agora, a
contract. If recordkeepors are defined by the Rules, the person in
charge of keeping records of something is not a recordkeepor unless
the Rules specifically say e is.
But Rule 2166 (Assets) only says that:
The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as
such by its backing document.
This wording implies not an attempt to define recordkeepor, but a
denotation of what the recordkeepor of an asset is, just as a Rule
could define what a co-author of a proposal is, or what a public
message is. That would not mean that the co-author of a CFJ or a
public contract is defined by that rule. There is no wording like
A recordkeepor is a person who is responsible for keeping track
of assets.
In other words, even though Rule 2166 tells us who the recordkeepors
of assets are, and it is the only rule that mentions recordkeepors, it
does *not* define the term.
Therefore, Rule 754 (2) does not apply, but rather Rule 754 (3) or
(4). I (proto-)judge CFJ 2027 TRUE.
