status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3733
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3733 ===============================
On June 7, 2019, omd earned 5 Coins for publishing a
duty-fulfilling report.
==========================================================================
Caller: Falsifian
Judge: G.
Judgement: FALSE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Falsifian: 08 Jun 2019 15:08:40
Assigned to G.: 12 Jun 2019 05:17:38
Judged FALSE by G.: 13 Jun 2019 15:48:25
Motion for G. to reconsider filed: 18 Jun 2019 01:23:42
Judged FALSE by G.: 18 Jun 2019 01:23:42
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
V.J. Rada said there's some precedent, but we haven't been able to
find it. omd found CFJ 3551, which isn't quite the same situation: in
it, H. Judge o decided that publishing a revision to a report in
response to a claim of error fulfills a duty for the purpose of the
Rewards rule.
Ignoring precedent, I think it's TRUE. R2143 defines "official duty
for an office", but I don't see "duty" defined in the rules. The first
definition in Wiktionary is "That which one is morally or legally
obligated to do". omd was both legally (in the sense that the rules
required em) and morally (in the sense that one should do what one
promises) obligated to publish that report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caller's Evidence:
omd wrote:
> I pledge to publish a report, at least once in the current week, about
> whether or not I am wearing a hat.
>
> I publish the following report:
> {
> I am not wearing a hat, although my bicycle helmet is on the desk in
> front of me.
> }
>
> I earn 5 Coins for publishing a duty-fulfilling report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge G.'s Arguments:
There are three terms that have to be evaluated for this CFJ: "Duty",
"Fulfilling", and "Report".
Duty
I agree with the Caller that the term is not defined in the rules, and
therefore we use a common definition. In context, though, the
appropriate definition not the general "moral obligation"[*] but "a task or
action that someone is required to perform." In this case, "required"
is a keyword, and our meaning of REQUIRED is not so far from the common
definition that it should be not used: by the Rules, a duty is a task a
person is REQUIRED to perform (or not perform). Since this is the
Rules, outside requirements don't count as duties (e.g. the report I was
required to give to my boss doesn't count). Keeping pledges counts for this.
Fulfilling
This can be read two ways. (1) A publication that has previously
fulfilled a duty (including someone else's duty) counts or (2) the act
of publication being rewarded must be the duty-fulfilling act. I find
that the best reading, reasonably supported by the grammar and clearly
supported by the intent, is that the publication is not
"duty-fulfilling" unless the act of publication being rewarded is
fulfilling a duty (otherwise the publication is a *copy* of a
duty-fulfilling report, which is not the same thing). So republishing
other peoples' formerly duty-fulfilling reports doesn't count.
Sorry.
Report
I agree that "report" is not explicitly defined by the rules. However,
several implications about "reports" are made in R2143/27. There's two
options here: (1) a "report" is anything fitting the common definition
of report, or (2) a "report" is limited to documents described in R2143.
I'll look at both options.
The relevant common definition of "report" is "an account given of a
particular matter, especially in the form of an official document".
The "especially" in the common definitions, in itself, is not enough to
limit reports to what Agora defines as "official". Therefore, by this
interpretation, any REQUIRED published account of information would be a
"report". We allow synonyms, so the keyword "report" need not be used
in setting up the requirement.
Under this interpretation, the Assessor makes reports of votes is
resolving decisions. An auction announcer makes reports of bids at the
end of an auction, etc. Any time a player is REQUIRED to provide any
factual information, would would constitute a duty-fulfilling report of
said information. Further, since basic by-announcement assertions are
factual, fulfilling ANY required duty by announcement would be a report
of doing so. If we use the common definition, I can't find any lines to
draw that don't seem artificial (e.g. restricting it to the term
"report" or requiring report-like formatting, etc.). Therefore, to go
by the common definition is to let pretty much anything qualify.
This is obviously not intended, and probably causes many problems, but
in the absence of R2143 I would support this interpretation for the
purposes of Rewards. The question is, then, does R2143 adequately limit
the scope of "Report" to a more limited subset of documents?
R2143 reads in part:
Any information defined by the rules as part of a person's report,
without specifying which one, is part of eir weekly report.
Further, the rules provides extended guidelines and REQUIREMENTS for
weekly reports, thereby regulating the production of weekly reports.
Since weekly reports are regulated, and depend on the definition of
their contents, and since "person's reports" in general are mapped to
weekly reports, defining something as "part of a person's report" is a
regulated action, only doable as explicitly described by the rules - and
this doesn't include pledges. [**]
I find this more limited scope of "report" more compelling for the
following reasons:
- Fits the intent (not a requirement, but nice).
- In common language, it's supported by the "Official" in the common
definition: "especially in the form of an official document".
- If we accept that "every publication duty is a report", then the rules
are implicitly defining lots of actions to be part of a person's report.
But that puts them on the "weekly report" timescale, which contradicts
whatever timeline those other duties have -quite a mess.
These aren't slam dunk arguments, but to me they are more compelling
than the "everything is a report" alternative.
This Court finds FALSE.
[*] Finding "moral obligations" both proscribes the unregulated, and is
contextually subjective, e.g. similar to "humiliation" in CFJ 3644.
[**] To be clear, R2143 described how a player CAN fulfill eir duty - by
"the publication of all such information". This describes the
circumstances under which the duty would succeed or fail as per R2125
(via the publication of "all information"). Therefore the contents (the
"all information") is regulated, as determining whether all information
is contained is part of determining success.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge's Evidence:
Rule 2143/27 (Power=1)
Official Reports and Duties
For each person:
1. If any task is defined by the rules as part of that person's
weekly duties, then e SHALL perform it at least once each week.
If any information is defined by the rules as part of that
person's weekly report, then e SHALL maintain all such
information, and the publication of all such information is
part of eir weekly duties.
2. If any task is defined by the rules as part of that person's
monthly duties, then e SHALL perform it at least once each
month. If any information is defined by the rules as part of
that person's monthly report, then e SHALL maintain all such
information, and the publication of all such information is
part of eir monthly duties.
Any information defined by the rules as part of a person's report,
without specifying which one, is part of eir weekly report.
Failure of a person to perform any duty required of em within the
allotted time is the Class-2 crime of Tardiness.
An official duty for an office is any duty that the Rules
specifically assign to that office's holder in particular
(regardless of eir identity).
A person SHALL NOT publish information that is inaccurate or
misleading while performing an official duty, or within a document
purporting to be part of any person or office's weekly or monthly
report.
Reports SHALL be published in plain text. Tabular data must line
up properly when viewed in a monospaced font. Publishing a report
that deviates from these restrictions is the Class 2 Crime of
Making My Eyes Bleed.
Officers SHOULD maintain a publicly visible copy of their reports
on the World Wide Web, and they SHOULD publish the address of this
copy along with their published reports.
A convergence is any change to the gamestate that has, in
accordance with the rules, been designated as such. A change to
the gamestate SHOULD NOT be designated as a convergence unless it
is designed to resolve gamestate ambiguity. Designating a change
as a convergence is secured; any player CAN do so with 3 Agoran
Consent. When officeholders provide historical information, they
NEED NOT accurately document the changes made by the convergence
or related ambiguities, provided that they instead note that the
convergence occurred. Information about a convergence (but not the
resulting state) is inherently uncertain and is thus excluded from
self-ratification.
Excerpt from Rule 2496/12 (Power=1)
Rewards
A player CAN, by announcement, earn the set of assets associated
with a reward condition exactly once in a timely fashion each time
e fulfills it, provided the announcement specifies the action that
e performed and the amount of assets e earns as a result.
[...]
* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
published in a week and the first monthly report published in a
month.
==========================================================================
