==============================  CFJ 2655  ==============================

    I am owed a draw from the Government deck.

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

Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  Quazie
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 2655a
Decision:                               REMAND


Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by scshunt:                      07 Aug 2009 19:54:52 GMT
Assigned to Quazie:                     08 Aug 2009 16:13:50 GMT
Quazie recused:                         16 Aug 2009 19:41:20 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        16 Aug 2009 19:51:17 GMT
Judged FALSE by omd:                    16 Aug 2009 22:17:34 GMT
Appealed by BobTHJ:                     16 Aug 2009 22:26:07 GMT
Appealed by Murphy:                     17 Aug 2009 07:30:15 GMT
Appealed by omd:                        17 Aug 2009 16:56:15 GMT
Appeal 2655a:                           17 Aug 2009 16:56:15 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     25 Aug 2009 23:27:20 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        25 Aug 2009 23:27:20 GMT
Judged FALSE by omd:                    01 Sep 2009 04:17:02 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 13:48, Sean Hunt<rideau3@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I award myself a Roll call and a Debate-o-Matic for my performance as
IADoP.
>>> As I mentioned in another mail I believe you are still owed two salary
>>> draws for Poobah.
>> I did not publish a caste report.
>>
> but you did publish a DoG report, so you completed a non-empty set of
duties.

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

Judge omd's Arguments:

The terminology used by the Rules makes it clear that an office has at
most one weekly report (see Rules 2162, 2166); although it is
generally published in two messages, the Poobah has a single report
which includes each person's caste and DoG card holdings.  E only
published half of that report, so e did not earn a weekly salary.

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

Appellant BobTHJ's Arguments:

I intend (with 2 support) to appeal this case. The relevant section of
R2258 said nothing about weekly reports (at the time this CFJ was
called):
{
At the beginning of each
      week, each holder of a high-priority office who completed a non-
      empty set of duties in the prior week earns a number of draws
      from the deck indicated by the switch equal to the interest
      index for the office.
}

By publishing a Deck of Government report, coppro completed a
non-empty set of duties. I request a judgment of REMAND and ask that
the judge consider the text of R2258.

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

Appellant Murphy's Arguments:

I support, and ask that the judge explicitly address whether a report
with multiple parts constitutes multiple duties, specifically in
comparison with non-report duties currently defined by the rules
and possible combinations of such duties.

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

Judge omd's Arguments:

My apologies for not bothering to check the previous version of the rule.

> Appellant BobTHJ's Arguments:
> {
> At the beginning of each
>      week, each holder of a high-priority office who completed a non-
>      empty set of duties in the prior week earns a number of draws
>      from the deck indicated by the switch equal to the interest
>      index for the office.
> }
>
> By publishing a Deck of Government report, coppro completed a
> non-empty set of duties. I request a judgment of REMAND and ask that
> the judge consider the text of R2258.

>From Rule 2258 (Decks, Draws, and Salaries):

      The Deck of Government is a deck of cards tracked by the Grand
      Poobah.

>From Rule 2166 (Assets):

      The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
      defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  That
      entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
      and their owners.  This portion of that entity's report is
      self-ratifying.

>From Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties):

      For each office:

      a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office's
         weekly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform
         it at least once each week.  If any information is defined by
         the rules as part of that office's weekly report, then the
         holder of that office SHALL maintain all such information,
         and the publication of all such information is part of that
         office's weekly duties.

So, each office has a set of duties.  There are two possible
interpretations of "part of that office's weekly duties":
-  "a weekly duty for that office" (one task = one duty)
-  "a subset of that office's weekly duties" (one task can contain
multiple duties)

The wording "part of...duties" seems to imply a subset, rather than
element of the set of duties.  In this case it would be:

- officer's duties {
-- task of publishing report ("all such information") {
--- duty/subtask: publication of information A
--- duty/subtask: publication of information B
-- }
- }

however, that strikes me as unnecessarily complicated, and moreover,
there is nothing in the Rules at all to suggest that A and B need be
the two "reports" the Poobah generally publishes (from the point of
view of the rules it is a single report published in two parts).  The
line *could* be drawn there, considering the list of Government cards
an atomic piece of information, but it could also be more a
fine-grained distinction, considering each (card, owner) pair a
separate factoid, or perhaps even half that is considered a piece of
information because it tells us that at least one instance of the card
exists, or . . .  Were coppro to publish only a tiny part of eir
report during a week, we would have to decide whether it counts as a
valid bit of information or not.  This is unnecessary unambiguity, and
certainly goes against the spirit of the "nonempty set of duties"
clause (e shouldn't be rewarded for publishing only half of a report
in any case).

Accordingly, I'm going with the simpler interpretation.  One task, one
duty.  The caller failed to complete the duty of publishing all
information defined as part of the report, so e did not complete a
nonempty set of duties.  FALSE.

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