============================== CFJ 1230 ==============================
Taral has not committed any acts of Promotor Misrepresentation.
Called by Taral: 18 Jun 2000 12:38:25 GMT
Assigned to Maud: 18 Jun 2000 23:46:49 GMT
Judged TRUE by Maud: 22 Jun 2000 00:07:48 GMT
Judge Maud's Arguments:
Although the Statement is not explicitly an accusation that Taral has
committed a Crime, Promotor Misrepresentation is defined by Rule 1770
as a Crime. Therefore, a Judgement of FALSE on the Statement is equivalent
to a Judgement of TRUE on the Statement, "Taral has committed the Crime
of Promotor Misrepresentation". Therefore, this Statement falls under
the standards of proof given in Rule 1575. That is, the Statement must
not be Judged FALSE (finding that Taral committed a Crime) unless the
evidence is sufficient to be certain of that Judgement beyond reasonable
doubt. I find that evidence from the two Rules mentioned above is
sufficient to constitute reasonable doubt about Taral's guilt.
According to Rule 1770, Promotor Misrepresentation is defined as
"[k]nowingly and willfully distributing a Proposal (or text purporting
to be a Proposal) not in the Current Batch". This definition is
ambiguous. Two readings are: (a) "Promotor Misrepresentation is knowingly
and willfully distributing a non-Current-Batch Proposal, whether one
knows the Proposal is in the Current Batch or not"; and (b) "Promotor
Misrepresentation is willfully distributing a Proposal one knows not to
be in the Current Batch". If the correct reading is (b), then the
Statement is TRUE, because Taral has indicated that at the time he
distributed Proposals 4017-4019, he did not believe he was distributing
Proposals not in the Current Batch. If, however, the correct reading
is (a), then a Judgement of FALSE cannot yet be ruled out.
However, Rule 1575 indicates that "it is a defense to any accusation of
a Crime that the Player reasonably believed that eir actions were not a
Crime at the time e performed them". As observed above, Taral did not
believe eir actions were a Crime at the time e performed them. Thus the
Judgement depends on whether Taral's belief was reasonable. This is
equivalent to asking whether Taral's belief that eir message of 5 June
2000 "encapsulated" a message of 1 June 2000 distributed Proposals during
the week of 29 May 2000. In CFJ 1229, the Judge ruled that Taral did not
distribute Proposals during that week; however, some Players have called
for its Appeal. This seems to indicate that, while it may turn out that
CFJ 1229, if actually sent to an Appeals Board, is sustained, it was still
reasonable to believe, before the Appeal, either that the message did or
that it did not distribute Proposals during the week of 29 May 2000.
Thus, even if the correct reading above is (a), Taral's reasonable belief
that the actions e was performing did not constitute a Crime is sufficient
defense by Rule 1575, and therefore a Judgement of TRUE is required.
Judge Maud's Evidence:
(A) Rule 1575/4
(B) Rule 1770/11
Rule 1575/4 (Power=1)
Standards of Proof
A CFJ alleging that a Player has violated a Rule or committed a
Crime shall not be judged TRUE unless the evidence is sufficient
to be certain of that Judgement beyond reasonable doubt.
In all other CFJs, the Judgement shall be consistent with the
preponderance of the evidence at hand.
Furthermore, it is a defense to any accusation of a Crime that
the Player reasonably believed that eir actions were not a
Crime at the time e performed them, or that e reasonably did not
know that e was required to perform an action, when such
nonperformance is defined as a Crime. A Player shall not be
convicted of a Crime if this defense applies.
Rule 1770/11 (Power=1)
The Current Batch for a given Week is a subset of the Proposal
Queue. Its contents shall be calculated at the beginning of
that Week. It shall contain every Disinterested Proposal then
in the Proposal Queue, as well as:
* all Interested Proposals in the Proposal Queue with
Priority greater than zero, if their number is not
greater than the Batch Size; or
* a set of Interested Proposals in the Proposal Queue
with the highest positive Priority the cardinality
of which is equal to the Batch Size. Ties for
highest Priority shall be broken in favor of those
Proposals which have been in the Queue the longest.
During a Week, the Promotor must distribute all and only
Proposals in that Week's Current Batch. Failure to Distribute
all Proposals in that Current Batch during that Week is the
Class 0.5 Infraction of Promotor Tardiness. All Players are
authorized to detect and report this Infraction. Knowingly and
willfully distributing a Proposal (or text purporting to be a
Proposal) not in the Current Batch is the Class 2 Crime of
Promotor Misrepresentation. All Players are authorized to
detect and report this Crime.
A Player may make a Claim of Error stating that a distributed
Proposal was not in the Current Batch at the time it was
distributed. If this is admitted, then:
* the Voting Period for that Proposal shall immediately
* all Votes cast on that Proposal shall be cancelled;
* the Promotor shall add the Proposal to the Proposal
Once a Proposal is distributed, it is removed from the Proposal
The Promotor shall distribute each proposal in the batch to the
Public Forum, accompanied by its number, the identity of its
Proposing Entity, and an indication of whether the Proposal is
Ordinary or Democratic.
The failure of the Promotor to distribute any of the above
accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive the
distribution of the Proposal of any legal effect.
A Proposal is only considered to be legally distributed if it
is explicitly marked as such. The Promotor is permitted to
publish the text of undistributed Proposals without necessarily
Immediately after all Proposals in the Current Batch have
been distributed the Promotor shall reduce the Priority of all
Proposals remaining in the Queue to half of their previous
values, rounding fractions down.