On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> To that end, this Court finds that, in order for a document to "purport" to > be a Report, it must contain sufficient evidence of the publisher's intent, > that the specific publication be a self-ratifying report (and if a report > is > by definition self-ratifying, any document that does not contain such > intent > is not, by definition, the self-ratifying report). To give discretion to > the Officer, the purporting can take multiple forms - a clear heading of > "Report", within-message delimiters, a new subject line, or if it's a > quoted > message a "TTTTPF", etc. > > H. Promotor Aris's style of Promotor Pool report has, for some time, been a > single sentence inserted with a proposal distribution, tucked within the > distribution itself. (e.g. "the proposal pool is empty" [0]) without > delimiters separating from the distribution. At some times in the past, > when I've noticed that a proposal I wrote was missing from the > distribution, > it has been confusing for me to figure out which part of the "distribution > document" to CoE. However, as long as the Pool was empty, and the > statement > was a clear statement of fact about the time of publication, it (just > barely, IMO) qualified as the Proposal Pool report. > Actually, on a further look, I'm suspicious of this logic. Enough that I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a Motion to Reconsider this judgment (I will not resolve the intent if there's something I'm missing but would like to get the intent out there). I see two issues with this logic. The first is quite minor and easily fixed, which is that not all reports are self-ratifying. So the Rulekeepor, for instance, would never publish with intent that it be self-ratifying. But such could be simply addressed by a standard such as "intent that, if the entire report was self-ratifying, that the report would indeed be a self-ratifying report" or the like. More deeply, though, CFJ 3645 held that the Rulekeepor could publish eir report by reference to an external URL at which the report was present. Presumably, because this ruling is grounded in the obligation of Rule 2143, this ruling would apply to other reports as well. But such an "out-of-line" report could *never* be self-ratifying, because Rule 2201 provides that only public documents---defined by Rule 1551 as parts of public messages---can be self-ratifying. A report not sent to a Public Forum directly is thus not a public document and incapable of self-ratification. We could also consider a hypothetical of "This is not a Promotor's Report, but it is a true statement about the game state: the proposal pool is currently empty." I believe that this statement would meet the criteria of Rule 2143 while at the same time I would be hard-pressed to believe that it was self-ratifying. The critical distinction, then, is that the obligation to publish a report is not an obligation to publish a document (much less a public document) purporting to be a report, but purporting is required to invoke self-ratification. The court's ruling is thus out of step with CFJ 3645 and the text of the rules. Alexis
