Index ← 2674a CFJ 2674 2675 → text
=========================  Criminal Case 2674  =========================

    BobTHJ violated Rule 2143, committing the Class-N Crime of Tardiness
    (with N=1) by failing to publish a Herald's report in the week prior
    to the one in which this message is published.

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

Caller:                                 scshunt
Barred:                                 BobTHJ

Judge:                                  woggle
Judgement:                              GUILTY/SILENCE

Appeal:                                 2674a
Decision:                               REMAND

Appeal:                                 2674b
Decision:                               REMAND


Judge:                                  woggle
Judgement:                              GUILTY


Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              GUILTY/SILENCE

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

History:

Called by scshunt:                      31 Aug 2009 01:29:05 GMT
Defendant BobTHJ informed:              31 Aug 2009 01:29:05 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     05 Sep 2009 15:09:48 GMT
Judged GUILTY/SILENCE by woggle:        05 Sep 2009 22:43:37 GMT
Appealed by BobTHJ:                     09 Sep 2009 16:55:27 GMT
Appeal 2674a:                           09 Sep 2009 16:55:27 GMT
Appealed by BobTHJ:                     09 Sep 2009 17:04:15 GMT
Appeal 2674b:                           09 Sep 2009 17:04:15 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     13 Oct 2009 00:17:00 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     13 Oct 2009 00:17:00 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     13 Oct 2009 00:17:00 GMT
Judged GUILTY by woggle:                13 Oct 2009 02:33:58 GMT
woggle recused:                         13 Oct 2009 02:33:58 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     14 Oct 2009 17:57:58 GMT
Judged GUILTY/SILENCE by ais523:        14 Oct 2009 18:08:18 GMT

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

Gratuitous Arguments by BobTHJ:

I argue for NOT GUILTY. I only became Herald on Saturday and should be
allowed a full 7 days to fulfill any outstanding obligations on the
office.

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

Caller's Arguments:

I do not know of any judicial precedent in this matter. There has been
at least one proposal to explicitly absolve new officers of their duties
for a short period of time so that they may be accustomed to the office.

Looking at the conditions for GUILTY set out in Rule 1504, the criterion
could be evaluated as follows for this case:

(a) Whether BobTHJ violated this rule is in question. The requirement is
that the holder of the office perform it at least once in a week. In the
case where the officer changes in the week, is it the old officer's
responsibility? the new officer's? A solid judicial decision in this
regard is requested as to the concrete liability of a given officer. I
do not know which is appropriate - either way, a person who held an
office for 29 days of a month could be found to be not responsible for
failing to perform the monthly duties of an office. One alternative is
to say that the person who holds the office for the majority of the
period is responsible, but this seems bad because the exact moment of
election resolution is not necessarily up to the officer, who may find
eir ability to fulfill eir obligation revoked 10 minutes before they
fulfill it. Alternatively, neither could be responsible, but this seems
like a cop-out.
(b) If (a) is found to be fulfilled, (b) is certainly fulfilled as the
duty was only last week
(c) Trivially fulfilled
(d) An IADoP's report was published specifying that the report was due,
and that the Accused was Herald. The Accused fulfilled eir other
official duties with less than half an hour remaining in the week; there
is no reason e should have been unaware that the report was due. E may
be able to claim this clause as defense under belief that e was not
responsible until a week had passed, however, I do not believe that the
Accused genuinely believed eir actions were legal.
(e) I see no reason this would not be fulfilled.

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

Judge woggle's Arguments:

I judge GUILTY / SILENCE.

It is our custom that obligations follow the office which is obliged to
perform them. Such movement of obligations is required for smooth
transitions between officeholders and for deputisation is enshrined in
R2160(a)'s practice of eliminating deputized obligations. While one
could argue that the obligations are incurred upon the holder of the
office at which the time period in which they are to be performed
starts, such an interpretation would lead to the bad for the game
conclusion that former officeholders are obliged to do IMPOSSIBLE things
while the new officeholder cannot perform some of those old obligations
except through deputisation. (Alternately, the obligations might be
imposed on no one, which would be similarly troubling.)

(If BobTHJ had not received a benefit of holding the Herald's office
during the end of the week (a card draw on 31 August) or the IADoP had
resolved the election exceptionally close to Monday 00:00 UTC, I would
have assigned a sentence of DISCHARGE.)

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

Appellant BobTHJ's Arguments:

I appeal this case. By custom Agora has permitted new officers a full
ASAP period to fulfill outstanding obligations.

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

Appellant BobTHJ's Arguments:

I appeal the sentence of this case. DISCHARGE would be more
appropriate based upon my previous comments.

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

Gratuitous Evidence by BobTHJ:

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:49, comex  wrote:
> You keep making that claim.  I personally think that this custom doesn't
> apply when the officer has "most of" a week (+ the election period) to
> prepare a report, but neither of us has evidence. If you give some, I think
> it would help your case.
>
As evidence, I submit that I can not recall in my 2+ years of history
playing Agora where a newly appointed officer is dinged for lateness
within 7 days of taking office. Though perhaps the burden of proof
lies with the appeals panel in finding a history of such
penalties/cases?

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

Judge woggle's Arguments:

On culpability, I rejudge GUILTY.

I don't think any serious challenge has been made in the arguments that
would show that a custom of extending officer time limits has existed,
and given that the evidence seems to merely be that BobTHJ couldn't
recall any prosecutions for it doesn't really rise to 'reasonably
believing that the alleged act did not violate the rule'.

Concerning sentencing, I recuse myself from this case.

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

Judge ais523's Arguments:

I judge the question on sentencing in CFJ 2674 SILENCE (1 Rest). I see
no reason to give anything but the standard punishment here; and as
woggle has judged that BobTHJ should have known he was breaking the rule
(this is a necessary implication of a GUILTY verdict), and BobTHJ was
rewarded despite eir lack of reporting, it makes sense to apply a
minimal punishment, although not much more than that.

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