============================== CFJ 2535 ==============================
root violated R2143 by failing to publish a Scorekeepor's report in
the week from 20-26 April.
Called by omd: 20 May 2009 12:59:27 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 22 May 2009 19:37:59 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523: 28 May 2009 02:10:44 GMT
Eir "Totally Correct Scoreboard" was the only Scoreboard e
published that week. Based on the above precedent, e did not publish
a "list of all [Points] and their owners" [R2166], only an incorrect
document purporting to be such a list, and thus failed to complete eir
Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:
Due to the report's ratification, our current gamestate takes that
report to have been accurate, so the act cannot have been illegal.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
this CFJ asks about the past gamestate, not a current
gamestate which may or may not contain ratified elements.
Judge ais523's Arguments:
First, the ratification seems to be irrelevant here. Ratifying something
incorrect works out what would have happened if it had been correct,
then changes the gamestate accordingly. R1551 puts limits on what it can
change, however (that is, what parts of the hypothetical gamestate the
true gamestate is altered to match); and one of the things it doesn't
change is the legality of actions. In other words, if you do something
illegal, it stays illegal, even if it was for making a false statement
that was later ratified.
So the remaining question is, did root's Scoreboard count as eir
Scorekeepor report for the week? It contained deliberately incorrect
information, after all.
Some relevant rule excerpts:
The Scorekeepor is a office, and the recordkeepor of points.
The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That
entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
and their owners. This portion of that entity's report is
The interesting fact here is that a recordkeepor of assets has to list
all the assets that exist. In the case of the Scorekeepor, therefore,
the report has to account for the whereabouts of every point in
existence. The specific error in root's report was to claim some players
had more points than they actually did; but notice that all the genuine
points were accounted for (just some extra points were also placed on
the report). Lying and stating that a player has too many points may
violate rule 2215); it will violate the penultimate para of rule 2143
(although that was accidentally repealed at the time of the scam in
question, which is what made it possible); but it won't violate R2143(a)
indirectly via R2166. (Stating that someone has too /few/ points,
though, is a breach of a SHALL in R2143(a) because it does not account
for the location of every point; this would not be punishable if it were
a genuine mistake, due to the officer in question believing that they
were complying with the rule, but would be punishable if it were
I judge CFJ 2535 NOT GUILTY to the charge of violating the old version
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 08:27 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> [I interpret ais523's judgement as implying FALSE sufficiently clearly.]
Oh, I thought it was a crim. I judge CFJ 2535 FALSE, unless it already
has that judgement.