========================= Criminal Case 2765 =========================
coppro violated Rule 1922, a power-1 Rule, by failing to award me
the Patent Title Three Months Long Service as soon as possible after
I had continuously held the office for three months.
Judgement: NOT GUILTY
Called by Yally: 23 Feb 2010 01:02:59 GMT
Defendant scshunt informed: 23 Feb 2010 01:02:59 GMT
Assigned to G.: 27 Feb 2010 16:58:52 GMT
Judged GUILTY/FINE by G.: 10 Mar 2010 18:40:26 GMT
Appealed by scshunt: 10 Mar 2010 23:17:07 GMT
Appeal 2765a: 10 Mar 2010 23:17:07 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 17 Mar 2010 23:37:18 GMT
Assigned to G.: 17 Mar 2010 23:37:18 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by G.: 29 Mar 2010 05:53:47 GMT
Rule 1922 (Defined Regular Patent Titles):
(c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine
Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be
awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a
particular Office continuously for the specified duration.
Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.
Rule 1023 (Common Definitions):
(a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible"
mean "within seven days". A requirement to perform an
action at an exact instant (e.g. "when X, Y SHALL Z"), but
not "in the same message", is instead interpreted as a
requirement to perform that action in a timely fashion after
Judge G.'s Arguments:
This is straightforward GUILTY - 1 Rest. However, I'll mention
that it is Rude on behalf of the caller; while the Officer is
required to track it (and thus can't escape responsibility), it
is much more reasonable to remind officers of automatically-
triggered events with long fuses before dinging em. Also, This
Judge remonstrates the caller for bothering to call a criminal
case rather than letting it go as an NoV. I think the 1-Rest
fine is the lightest wrist-slap short of discharge; in the
current economy it's easier to clear a rest than write an
Appellant scshunt's Arguments:
Although I do not fault the judge for this, having just noticed it
myself, I appeal the question of culpability for this case as I did not
breach rule 1922, which imposes no timing requirement on the award.
Judge G.'s Arguments:
NOT GUILTY on the technicality pointed out by coppro and Murphy:
the rule that the inaction in question allegedly may have violated
was R649. The question of whether R649 was violated (whether the
authorizing conditions were announced by a report that had a few
dates but didn't spell out the implications of those dates) is an
interesting one. -G.