The below CFJ is 3927. I assign it to Telna.
=====
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.
Called by ais523: Sat 04 Sep 2021 05:42:42
=====
On 2021-09-04 15:42, 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.
