============================  Appeal 3318a  ============================

Panelist:                               Ienpw III
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               G.
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               Henri
Decision:                               REMAND



Appeal initiated:                       29 May 2013 20:51:43 GMT
Assigned to Ienpw III (panelist):       30 May 2013 04:25:19 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist):              30 May 2013 04:25:19 GMT
Assigned to Henri (panelist):           30 May 2013 04:25:19 GMT
G. moves to REMAND:                     30 May 2013 23:34:16 GMT
Ienpw III moves to REMAND:              09 Jun 2013 18:02:47 GMT
Henri moves to REMAND:                  09 Jun 2013 18:02:47 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                09 Jun 2013 18:02:47 GMT


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

> It is unreasonable to interpret "tracked by X" as a
> requirement that X personally keep track of something, as it is never
> the style of this ruleset to write a requirement that someone do
> something as a bare statement that e does it

This part of my argument actually concurs with the Judge's
reasoning and outcome, and is therefore rather incoherent in context.
I blame lack of sleep.


Panelist G.'s Arguments:

The rules are indeed silent over whether something that is merely
"tracked" is REQUIRED to be an official part of a report or otherwise
reported.  In many, but not all, cases, the "tracked" includes
specifications as to the information being part of a report.  But in some
cases, the report isn't specified.  Current game custom holds that the
information is still part of the report, but do the rules support this
current game custom?

To "track" (in the sense of "keep track of") is to "be cognizant or
aware of a fact or a specific piece of information".  Both the judge and
appellants seem to agree that, if the rules state that an Officer
"tracks" a particular fact, the officer is required to know that
particular fact.

But I agree with Judge Wes, that this does not, on its own, make the
tracked item part of the report.  R2143 states that reports consist of
things that the rules define as part of reports, and "tracked" on its
own does not define this.  Further, R2143 (in the context of defining
weekly and monthly duties) indirectly describes "tasks".  That is what
tracking is, by definition: a task.  And as per R2143, tasks are treated
separately from official reports.

I briefly considered that default proof of the task being done must be
provided weekly, as that was the default for reports, but there's no
clear evidence that this is the default requirement for "tasks".  It is
actually more in keeping with the general rules to decouple "tracking"
from the reports.  For example, if a Rule says "The auctioneer tracks
bids, and reports them at the end of the auction" this does not also
make the bids part of a report in addition to the requirement to report
them at the end of an auction.

But I disagree with Judge Wes on another matter.  This does not wholly
free the Officer from responsibility!

While an officer's state of knowledge can't be perfect - the Officer's
mind is not required to be automatically and always up to date with the
game -  a reasonable assumption is that "knowledge" constitutes "being
able to produce [publish] the information within a reasonable time after
a request" and a Report is certainly a handy method of ensuring this is
done.  Responding to requests (through CoEs perhaps) is another.  Judge
Wes did not check whether the Defendant had reasonably tracked the
quantities in question.

Since tracking is in fact some kind of requirement that needs proof that
it was performed, an allegation of lack-of-tracking SHOULD be judged by
asking the Defendant "can you produce the tracked value in a reasonable
time, if so prove it?" and using the answer to decide the judgement (in
this case, it is also reasonable for the defense to be lack-of-knowledge
of the requirement, as it is not clear).

I REMAND (without prejudice) this case.


Panelist Ienpw III's Arguments:

[no opinion given, G.'s opinion backed by CotC in case it was needed]


Panelist Henri's Arguments:

[no opinion given]