==============================  CFJ 2247  ==============================

    The Notary SHALL publish the fact that ais523 owns a Pain called
    "xyzzy" as part of eir weekly report.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  BobTHJ
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by ais523:                       30 Oct 2008 21:58:21 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ:                     02 Nov 2008 16:15:25 GMT
BobTHJ recused:                         05 Nov 2008 15:48:10 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         08 Nov 2008 08:48:21 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     08 Nov 2008 22:01:37 GMT

========================================================================

Gratuitous Evidence by ehird:

You don't.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Evidence by Murphy:

http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-October/
015401.html

========================================================================

Judge G.'s Arguments:

First, this court finds that the Notary is the recordkeepor of Pains.
(There was some discussion that came to this consensus, which I will
not repeat).

R2143 states that any material that is defined as "part of" an Officer's
weekly or monthly report has the weekly or monthly requirements attached
(with default being weekly).

Now R2166 states:
      The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as
      such by its backing document.  That entity's report includes a
      list of all instances of that class and their owners.
but it's important to note that the Assets report here is not specific
to Officers and offices.  In fact, it's specific to entities; and
while entities may hold Offices, Offices are not entities, but rather
roles tied to entities (this is an important point).

Thus, the rule on Assets (R2166) does not directly include any
requirements for timeliness of reports, etc. associated with Offices
or reference to officers' official reports, but rather ties reports
to the entities who might happen to hold those offices.

If we construe the "report" in R2166 to apply Asset Reports to "part
of" an Officer's report as defined in R2143, this (a) creates
requirements that aren't there, (b) would vary as recordkeepors change,
depending on whether the recordkeepor was an officer,  and (c) generally
does not tie to the rules defining particular reports; the whole of a
particular report consists of what the rules define as being for that
report (d) leads to inappropriate results due to the confusion of
"office" and "entity holding the office"; for example, if I am a
contestmaster, and a contest says "Goethe is the recordkeepor of X",
and I am also the Herald, does the fact that I am an entity holding
the office and the entity that is the contestmaster make the asset
part of the Herald's report?  This double-indirection is inappropriate
and not directly supported by the Rules in question (even accidentally).

Therefore, given the indirect referrals, and the errors that would
arise if we assumed otherwise, this court finds that the R2166
"entity's report" means "a report of the assets in question" which
is separate from any other report and not necessarily "part of" an
officer's report, though it may be part of the report of an entity
(a person) who happens to hold the office.  The Notary is under no
obligation to publish this report on Assets at any particular time.

This court finds FALSE.

Two additional notes:
First, I do note that in this particular case, the publication of
the monthly contract text, which refers to a text file outside of the
Notary's control which defines the assets in question and their
disposition, would be a sufficient report if one were necessary.

Second, I would suggest the proper fix would be a clarification of
R2143, to include in the weekly reports section "including any reports
of assets for which the Rules defined the officer as the recordkeepor."

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

The context was a now-terminated pledge which allowed ehird to create and
destroy Pains by modifying a file on eir computer. (I'll dig out the text
of the pledge later when I'm back on my regular computer.) The pledge
specified the Notary as the recordkeepor of those things, but e had no way
to determine whether any Pains existed or not.

The CFJ is probably UNDETERMINED if this actually works (although ehird
claimed in a-d that it was FALSE, there is no obvious way to check), and
probably FALSE if it doesn't. (I phrased it as I did due to the off-chance
of UNDECIDABLE, but I doubt it is.)

========================================================================