============================== CFJ 1360 ==============================
Murphy should not be penalized for eir recent failure to judge CFJ
Called by teucer: 05 May 2002 17:01:02 GMT
Assigned to t: 09 May 2002 01:34:24 GMT
Judged TRUE by t: 15 May 2002 21:46:26 GMT
Murphy had no reason to read the body of a message assigning a CFJ to
someone else. Therefore, ey can be excused for not realizing that the
CFJ had in fact been assigned to em. Due to an e-mail bug Murphy
mentioned on the Discussion list, the message did not show up in the
preview pane, so ey did not see the text, and thus had no clue that ey
was a judge. It would therefore be unreasonable to penalize em for this.
Headers of a message from Eris, dated 4/25
[mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of The Goddess
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 12:06 PM
Subject: OFF: CFJ 1348 assigned to root
Judge t's Arguments:
The caller argues that Murphy should not incur penalties for committing an
infraction for various reasons. The penalty for infractions is defined in
Rule 1505 as being a number a Blots that the infractor gains. The method
of reporting infractions is defined in Rule 1812. The court's
interpretation of these Rules is that the penalization for an infraction
happens at the time the infractor gains the Blots prescribed as the
penalty for that Infraction.
Should Murphy be penalized? Apparently Murphy had already been penalized
at the time this CFJ was called. According to RUle 451 the court must
judge this Rule based on the truth value of the statement at the time the
CFJ was called. The infraction Murphy committed was Failure to Judge
(R408) which can be detected by the CotC. Rule 1812 allows, then, the CotC
to announce a Notice of Infraction. It is slightly unclear if the Rule
allows multiple Notices for a given infraction. It is possible to
interpret the Rule both as allowing or not allowing this. It is also
possible that the Rule allows multiple Notices but only one Penalty.
Although a Notice is required before the Penalty may be imposed, the Rules
don't seem to explicitly state that the Penalty could be imposed several
times for the same Infraction. Rule 217 allows the judge to consider
several factors when the Rules are unclear. As game custom, commonsense
and the best interests of the game seem to point towards not allowing
multiple penalties for one infraction, the court decides that Rule 1812
should be so interpreted.
The caller claims that Murphy should not be penalized because it is not
fair. However, the Rules don't care about the fairness of penalties for
infractions (giving the choice to the Players who are authorized to report
the infraction) and anyone who has played for some time can attest that
there is overwhelming evidence that even the unfairest of penalties are
applied at times. Of course, this consideration is not important for this
case, as this CFJ should be judged true even if the penalty was completely
valid (see above).
In conclusion, the court finds this CFJ TRUE.