On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 10:43 PM ais523 via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> 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
