============================== CFJ 1713 ==============================
CFJ 1712 is a criminal case.
Called by Zefram: 02 Aug 2007 10:49:54 GMT
Assigned to Wooble: 02 Aug 2007 10:54:05 GMT
Judged TRUE by Wooble: 02 Aug 2007 12:55:11 GMT
Murphy called for judgement with the phrasing:
> >I call for judgement to determine whether CotC Zefram violated
> >Rule 1871 (The Standing Court) by changing all sitting players
> >to standing on or about Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:11:48 +0100.
The form of the purpose that e stated ("to determine whether ...") most
closely matches the purpose of an inquiry case. Rule 591/20 says:
An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a
Murphy did not explicitly label any part of eir message as the statement
to be judged, but it is quite clear what the statement is if e initiated
an inquiry case: everything following "whether", up to the end of the
However, the arguments that Murphy supplied with eir call for judgement
suggested a sentence of APOLOGY, which is not a possible outcome in an
inquiry case. Sentencing applies to criminal cases only. Murphy later
clarified that e had intended to initiate a criminal case.
Rule 1504/10 says of criminal cases:
A criminal case's purpose is to determine the culpability of a
particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach
of the rules, and to punish the guilty.
This is quite different from the purpose of an inquiry case. It is also
a very poor match for the form of Murphy's CFJ.
This case essentially comes down to whether Murphy's intent, manifested
through the incidental comment about sentencing, is sufficient to override
eir explicit statement regarding the purpose of eir CFJ. I suggest that
game custom goes against such an interpretation.
Judge Wooble's Arguments:
The wording "...to determine whether..." in initiating a judicial case
does not, in itself, indicate that the case is an inquiry; indeed Rule
1504/10 itself says "A criminal case's purpose is to determine the
culpability[...]". The phase "whether CotC Zefram violated
Rule 1871" can only be read to mean that what is to be determined is
CotC Zefram's culpability for an alleged breach of the rules,
specifically of Rule 1871.
I find that Murphy's statement in bringing the case satisfied all of
the criteria set forth in Rule 1504. It clearly identifies the
defendant and the action which is in breach of the rules. 1504
requires nothing further in terms of the specific language to be used;
to state "This is a criminal case with Zefram as the Defendant" would
be have been more explicit but perhaps redundant.