Chuck has violated Rule 1434 (Default Procedure for Referendum
Voting) by failing to perform his duties as Vote Collector.
Called by: Steve
Eligible: Peekee, Vlad, Kolja A.,
elJefe, Michael, Morendil, Elysion, Crito,
Had their turn: Oerjan, Blob, Murphy
Already served: -
By request: -
On Hold: -
Called by Steve: Wed, 12 May 1999 20:01:04 +1000
Assigned to Peekee: Tue, 18 May 1999 06:13:26 +0200
Judged TRUE by Peekee: Tue, 18 May 1999 01:30:11 PDT
Judgement published: as of this message
On Wednesday, 21 April 1999, Chuck sent a message to the Public Forum,
the relevant portions of which read:
Subject: BUS: An Object Lesson: Let the Proceedings Begin
To: email@example.com (Agora Business)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:09:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Charles E. Carroll"
I therefore call a Referendum to Impeach Steve as COTC. As per
Rules 1434 and 1486, votes must be sent to me within one week of
this message. Once such a Referendum has passed, we can begin to
resolve these issues fairly in the courts. I vote FOR this
As can be seen, Chuck correctly identified himself as the Vote Collector
for this Referendum as per Rules 1434 and 1486.
R1434 states in part:
* Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the
first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is
begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public
Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.
* Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All
Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting
Period have no effect.
* Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote
Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting
Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as
the name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.
* Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must
perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum
is not announced within one Week following the end of the
Voting Period, it automatically fails.
The Voting Period for Chuck's Referendum concluded on April 28, but in
the two weeks since then, Chuck has made no announcements of any kind
concerning what votes were cast by which Players.
Now, it is noteworthy that although R1434 requires the Vote Collector to
publish this information, it does not say explicitly by when this must
be done. However, in light of the last of the quoted clauses, I think it
would be reasonable to conclude that a Vote Collector who does not
publish the result of a Referendum within one week of the conclusion of
the Voting Period has failed to perform eir required duties, and has
I hereby file a Motion with the Judge of this CFJ, requesting that e
issue a Judicial Order penalizing Chuck 1 Blot for violating R1434.
The facts that Chuck was the Vote collector, and the referendum had
indeed begun are not in doubt. However, as the caller says the rule
does not state explicitly when the Vote collector has to make any
post to the Public Forum. This is clearly a flaw in the rule that
needs to be corrected, but that is not the question here.
It is also obvious that Chuck has not yet performed his duties as
Vote Collector. In my opinion he has had plenty of time to perform
those duties. Also after he should have reported the results of the
Referendum, he has repeatedly made posts to the Public Forum. I
believe that it is in the best interests of the game that Vote
Collectors should have to post such results in a reasonable time,
and so I find that Chuck failed to perform his duties as Vote
Collector for the given referendum.
I hereby file a Motion with the Judge of this CFJ, requesting that
e issue a Judicial Order penalizing Chuck 1 Blot for violating R1434."
This Motion is denied.
In accordance with Rule 1509, I hereby execute an Order to Compel.
I hereby order Chuck to complete his all of his duties as Vote
collector for the given Referendum. He must perform all of these
actions with in one week.
Note: I believe that a Vote Collector is a "official position" of
responsibility as described in Rule 1509. If Chuck fails to comply
he will be removed from that position, in such a case I believe
another CFJ would have to be made to decide how the result of the
Referendum would be decided.
Evidence attached by the Caller: