Index ← 2664 CFJ 2665 2666 → text
=========================  Criminal Case 2665  =========================

    coppro violated power=2 rule R2259 by deputizing for the Anarchist
    to deal emself cards before hand limits had been enforced for the
    month.

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

Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              NOT GUILTY

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

History:

Called by scshunt:                      16 Aug 2009 18:51:23 GMT
Defendant scshunt informed:             16 Aug 2009 18:51:23 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     18 Aug 2009 23:31:14 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by ais523:            24 Aug 2009 06:59:05 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Roger Hicks wrote:
> coppro deputized for the Anarchist to deal emself cards from the deck
> of change. This violated the SHALL NOT in R2259. I'm really not sure
> if this should be called against coppro or allispaul.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:

I cannot possibly have violated R2259. It is possible the deals
platonically failed (and were subsequently ratified, which would leave
me with outstanding deals), but not that they were illegal. The rules
for deputisation do not, in my view, cause any other corollary
obligations to be imposed on the deputy.

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

Judge ais523's Arguments:

Rule 2259:
{{{
      The dealer SHALL NOT
      deal any cards to any entity between the beginning of the month
      and performing this duty for all entities.
}}}
Rule 2160:
{{{
      Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
      particular office (deputise for that office) if all of the
      following are true:
}}}

coppro wrote (on 8 August):
{{{
I deputize for Anarchist to deal myself two Distrib-u-Matic cards and
one Committee card.
}}}

coppro's arguments (not attached to this CFJ yet for some reason):
{{{
I cannot possibly have violated R2259. It is possible the deals
platonically failed (and were subsequently ratified, which would leave
me with outstanding deals), but not that they were illegal. The rules
for deputisation do not, in my view, cause any other corollary
obligations to be imposed on the deputy.
}}}

Nowhere in the deputisation rules does it suggest that it's impossible
to deputise for an illegal action; they require the action to be
possible, but not necessarily legal. Therefore, I don't think coppro's
"cannot possibly have violated" is correct. So the only remaining
questions are to whether the deals platonically failed (which would
happen if the obligations had never been incurred), and to whether
deputising for an illegal action is illegal.

At the time, everyone was pretty sure that the cards were in fact owed;
and in the absence to evidence in the contrary, I conclude that coppro
was in fact owed three draws from the deck in question. (And also that
the cards in question were chosen at random; this is impossible to
verify, and leads to the cards platonically not having been created if
they weren't, which is likely quite a large problem, but one that need
not be considered here.) So the remaining question is, do rules apply
that apply to officers also apply to deputies?

The answer to this can only be that they do; deputisation is done as if
one held the office, so for the purpose of working out the
possibility /and legality/ of the deputisation, the rules must be
calculated as if the deputy held the office. In this case, coppro dealt
the cards, and coppro hadn't performed the duty in question for all
entites before dealing the cards, so there's a pretty clear violation.
There's also a bug here, though; suppose coppro had performed the duty
in question; it would then be illegal for allispaul to deal the other
people their remaining cards (due to it not having been em who performed
the destruction duty!). Rule 2259 should probably make it illegal to
deal cards before anyone has performed destruction, rather than before
that player has performed destruction.

So, the rule was violated; is it plausible to consider that coppro might
reasonably have thought that the rule had not been violated? It's
certainly plausible that coppro might have drastically misread a rule
(it's happened in the past), so the matter remains as to whether it's
reasonable. (It's also worth noting that coppro called the CFJ at II 2,
implying that e thought there was some controversy involved.) Given that
nobody contested the high II of the case, nor submitted arguments trying
to refute coppro's, it seems that this view was generally held to be
reasonable (or at least, nobody cared enough to claim it was
unreasonable); therefore, I judge CFJ 2665 NOT GUILTY on the basis that
coppro probably held a reasonable belief that e was not breaking the
rule.

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