Index ← 2545a CFJ 2545 2546 → text
=========================  Criminal Case 2545  =========================

    Yally violated Rule 2143, committing the Class-6 Crim of Making My
    Eyes Bleed, by means of publishing eir most recent IADoP's report in
    HTML.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 ais523
Barred:                                 Yally

Judge:                                  scshunt
Judgement:                              GUILTY/SILENCE

Appeal:                                 2545a
Decision:                               AFFIRM

========================================================================

History:

Called by ais523:                       28 May 2009 03:11:41 GMT
Defendant Yally informed:               28 May 2009 03:11:41 GMT
Assigned to scshunt:                    29 May 2009 21:15:39 GMT
Judged GUILTY/SILENCE by scshunt:       29 May 2009 23:36:58 GMT
Appealed by Yally:                      29 May 2009 23:52:05 GMT
Appeal 2545a:                           30 May 2009 02:44:32 GMT
AFFIRMED on Appeal:                     08 Jun 2009 22:51:45 GMT

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

R101 allows players to participate in the fora. Email format
is not plain text either, because it has headers.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by ehird:

Those are officially RFC-defined email metadata, not part of the
actual message as we speak of it.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

And boy, even if that's not a defense, here's one that shouldn't be
class 6.  I mean, it shouldn't be better to publish no report at all
instead of using HTML.  -G.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

does the message contain a plain-text version without
artifacts?  (I can't check...) If so, it's absurd to punish Yally for
including a monospaced HTML version.  In Gmail and on iPhone, a
plaintext version would be displayed in variable width font (and it
can't be toggled on the later). Thus the HTML copy enhances
readability-- indeed, all officers should provide it.

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 21:09 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I publish an NoV alleging that Yally violated Rule 2143, committing the
> Class-6 Crim of Making My Eyes Bleed, by means of publishing eir most
> recent IADoP's report in HTML.
>
> I contest this NoV.

I CFJ on this; the issue of whether MIME messages containing both
plaintext and HTML are legal is a rather important one, and I think it
should go through the courts.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by Yally:

Regardless of my guilt or innocence on the matter, I believe that if I am
found guilty, it would be fundamentally unjust for any sentencing other than
DISMISS as it is standard for gmail to use MIME and I cannot undo MIME and
simultaneously submit reports in fixed width font.

========================================================================

Judge scshunt's Arguments:

First, I will establish whether or not Yally is guilty.

For a verdict of GUILTY, all of the conditions outlined in R1504 must be
met.

  (a) the Accused breached the specified rule via the specified act.

In Yally's case, e published eir report, entitled [IADoP] Office Report,
in both HTML and plain text through the use of a MIME multipart message.
Rule 2143 states that
      Reports SHALL be published in plain text.  Tabular data must
      line up properly when viewed in a monospaced font.  Publishing
      reports that deviate from these regulations is the Class 6 Crime
      of Making My Eyes Bleed.
In particular, it is not the failure to publish a plaintext report that
is the crime; it is the publication of a non-plaintext report. The
archives make it clear that Yally's message in fact included two
separate reports: one in plaintext that conforms except in a trivial
manner (in the Weekly reports section, the Promotor and Conductor lines
are indented by one space), and one in HTML consisting of what is
largely believed to be the same content, though I have not verified it.
The second one is not readable plain text, which vilolates the
regulations put forth in R2143 and thus constitues the Crime of Making
My Eyes Bleed.

As such, I find this condition satisfied.

  (b) the breach occurred withing 90 days prior to the case being
      initiated.

I find this condition satisfied, no arguments necessary.

  (c) judgement has not already been reached in another criminal case,
      or punishment already applied through another uncontested notice
      of violation, with the same Accused, the same rule, and
      substantially the same alleged act.

I find this condition satisfied, no arguments necessary.

  (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the alleged
      act did not violate the specified rule.

This could present a valid defense. Yally may not have been aware that
his email client was publishing in HTML as well as plain text as the
reports are largely indistinguishable. However, given that complaints
had repeatedly been raised and instructions given to Yally regarding the
delivery of emails in text form from eir specific mail client, and the
ease by which the verification of content sent to the lists can be
performed (see my recent test message to a-d), I find that it would have
been reasonable for Yally to be aware that eir emails were being sent in
multipart form.

Furthermore, the fact that Yally may not have known that a multipart
email violated the rules is immaterial. Ignorance of the law is not a
defense except when it is genuinely unreasonable to expect the person to
know the law - given that this rule is new, it is expected that every
player would have read the Assessor's results posting, which includes
the text of new rules.

As such, I find this condition satisfied.

  (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the breach
      without committing a different breach of equal or greater
      severity.

The only possible more severe breach would be the Crime of Endorsing
Forgery. There was no reason that ratification without objection needed
to be related in the publication of any report - doubly so given that
the most substantial part of the IADoP's report is self-ratifying.

As such, I find this condition satisfied.

Accordingly with my findings, I assign a judgment of GUILTY.

Now, I shall assign a sentence. In considering the appropriate sentence,
there are two vital factors to consider.

The first is that Yally did not breach the spirit of the law but only
the text. E did simultaneously publish a text-only report as specified
by the rule, and the illegal HTML report did conform to the requirements
specified by the rules.

The second is that it would have been trivial for Yally to submit a
report in plain text. As has been demonstrated by the numerous other
reports, all published only in plain text (several of whom use GMail,
though I do not know which officers, if any, normally submit messages
through the GMail web interface); by the instructions given by root as
to causing the GMail web interface to submit messages only in plain
text; and by the test message to a-d I sent from the GMail web interface
for the purpose of determining whether or not it was possible to send a
message via that interface in plain text - the archives verify that it
is - it is clear that it would not have been much extra effort for Yally
to compose eir reports in plain text.

As such, I feel that a compromise is warranted. While I feel that
APOLOGY is too light a punishment for an easy-to-avoid act for which the
ninny has repeatedly been reprimanded pending the new, legislation, 6
Rests is far too harsh given the ninny's efforts toward conformance.

As such, I set the fine for this case at 3 Rests (the minimum possible),
having already received sufficient support, I judge SILENCE, and I spend
C# to destroy one of Yally's Rests as 3 is still disproportionate.

Court is adjourned.

========================================================================

Appellant Yally's Arguments:

While I mostly accept Judge coppro's arguments, I do not agree entirely.


     (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the alleged
         act did not violate the specified rule.

     (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the breach
         without committing a different breach of equal or greater
         severity.


At the time I submitted that report, I was fully aware of this rule but I also
legitamately thought that I was not breaching it. From my point of view, I
don't have very many options. There is a plaintext option in Gmail, but
selecting this removes any capabilities to change fonts or fontspacing,
meaning I am stuck with a variable width font. Even now I'm unsure how to
satisfy both the plaintext and monospaced requirements and, without some help,
I'll probably break this rule again.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by woggle:

I support this appeal.

But, Yally should read R1504:
>       An appeal concerning any assignment of judgment in a criminal
>       case within the past week CAN be initiated by the accused by
>       announcement.
Arguments for the appeal:
I do not agree with Yally's arguments; however, I believe the appeals
panel should consider Pavitra's objection:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>
>> >   (a) the Accused breached the specified rule via the specified act.
>> >
>> > In Yally's case, e published eir report, entitled [IADoP] Office Report,
>> > in both HTML and plain text through the use of a MIME multipart message.
>> > Rule 2143 states that
>> >       Reports SHALL be published in plain text.  Tabular data must
>> >       line up properly when viewed in a monospaced font.  Publishing
>> >       reports that deviate from these regulations is the Class 6 Crime
>> >       of Making My Eyes Bleed.
>> > In particular, it is not the failure to publish a plaintext report that
>> > is the crime; it is the publication of a non-plaintext report.
>>
> I don't see that that interpretation necessarily follows from that text,
> and IIRC this very point of interpretation was one of the key
> controversies of the case. Can you explain in more detail how you
> arrived at your reasoning?
>
Yally's report was plainly published in plain text as coppro even
states. Is this really arguing that Yally published two Registrar's
reports by publishing a multipart/alternative message, and that one of
these reports violated the rule by not being in plain text? If so, this
does not seem a reasonable interpretation, as the MIME pretty clearly
marks it as exactly one message, and we have traditionally been somewhat
allowing with message formats (e.g. multipart documents spanning
multiple emails). If they are the same report, published simulatenously
in HTML and plain text, then this report was plainly published in a
plain text so Yally is NOT GUILTY because the specified act did not
violate the rule in this case, because e did publish this report in
plain text as required by the rule.

Perhaps Yally violated the rule by publishing eir report as a multipart
MIME message instead of as plain text, but that is not what coppro
appears to argue and would necessitate a verdict of NOT GUILTY because
Yally did not perform the specified act ("publishing eir most recent
IaDOP's report in HTML").

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:

"Publishing reports that deviate from these regulations is the Class 6
Crime of Making My Eyes Bleed." It's very specific that the act of
publishing a deviating report is illegal (the prior text about "Reports
SHALL be published in plain text." is misleading; the act of committing
a crime is in itself a separate violation - see various other rules that
provide Crimes without otherwise specifying that the Crime is a
violation of the rule.

========================================================================