Index ← 2859 CFJ 2860 2861 → text
=========================  Criminal Case 2860  =========================

    omd violated the power-3 rule 2201 by making an inappropriate Claim
    of Error, because the nature of the doubt is a matter of legal
    interpretation rather than of fact.


Caller:                                 ais523
Barred:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Taral
Judgement:                              NOT GUILTY



Called by ais523:                       12 Sep 2010 19:30:29 GMT
Defendant omd informed:                 12 Sep 2010 19:30:29 GMT
Assigned to Taral:                      13 Sep 2010 21:30:39 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by Taral:             19 Sep 2010 22:48:26 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 12:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 14:46 -0400, omd wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> >>> I pay a fee to make Distributed Proposal 6830 distributable.
> >>
> >> CoE: You don't have sufficient ergs to perform the action because
> >> performing the action is impossible because it doesn't have an
> >> instance of the Distributability switch.
> >
> > NoV: omd violated the power-3 rule 2201 by making an inappropriate Claim
> > of Error, because the nature of the doubt is a matter of legal
> > interpretation rather than of fact. (This NoV may fail on the basis that
> > "inappropriate" != "illegal", but I can't think of any more sensible
> > interpretation there; "impossible" seems rather implausible.)
> I contest this NoV, as "inappropriate" is not explicitly defined as
> illegal, here or anywhere else.  It /is/ explicitly defined as
>   1) SHOULD NOT, for judgements.  (As long as the judge reasonably
>      believed eir judgement was appropriate - which e pretty much always
>      did - any criminal case would be NOT GUILTY by R1504(d) and/or (e)
>      anyway, so allowing such cases at all was generally agreed to be
>      more annoying than it was worth.)
>   2) CANNOT, in Rule 2288 (Induction), when allowing a player to
>      voluntarily perform an action using a higher dependent-action
>      threshold than required by the rules.


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 20:34 -0700, Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Ed Murphy  wrote:
> > Detail:
> >
> > ==============  Criminal Case 2860 (Interest Index = 0)  ===============
> >
> >    omd violated the power-3 rule 2201 by making an inappropriate
> >    Claim of Error, because the nature of the doubt is a matter of
> >    legal interpretation rather than of fact.
> >
> > ========================================================================
> H. Caller ais523, would you like to make any gratuitous arguments as
> to why the Court should rule that the text in question ("appropriate
> for...") is not merely advisory?

Gratuitous arguments: There would be no need to include the text in the
rule if it were merely advisory, because it's clear that using a CFJ
only really makes sense for a dispute anyway. The closest parallel in
the rules is probably the distinction between gratuitous arguments and
evidence in the rules; IIRC that section was added to the rules in an
attempt to force players to classify evidence/arguments correctly
(although only at SHOULD level), because Murphy was fed up of em getting
it wrong. Likewise, the text in 2201 seems intended to encourage players
to use the right sort of challenge to a self-ratifying document, and it
won't succeed well at doing that if it's unenforceable.


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

Defendant's arguments: By that argument, the appropriateness of
judgements doesn't succeed well at doing anything, because the only
thing depending on it is a SHOULD and the appropriateness of other
(appeals) judgements.

But the point is somewhat moot, because I believed that ais523 was
referring to the proposal with ID number 6830, having forgotten of the
existence of the other proposal e could be referring to, and thus that
eir attempt failed based on a matter of fact.  I postulate that under
the current rules, interpreting (type of entity possessing ID numbers)
(number) as referring to the entity with the listed ID number is
something a reasonable person could do-- unambiguous reference is,
after all, the point of ID numbers.


Judge Taral's Arguments:

It is quite clear that there is a significant question of legal
interpretation here. Given that there is no clear correct
interpretation of rule 2201 and that there is an interpretation of
rule 2201 such that omd did not violate it, it is entirely reasonable
that omd would have thought e was not violating rule 2201.

The question on culpability in CFJ 2860 is judged NOT GUILTY by 1504(d).

As a note: despite omd's status as Pariah, the Court has no
flexibility as to the question on culpability. Were omd GUILTY, Rule
2132 might apply, but the Court declines to issue any opinion on that


Judge Taral's Evidence:

1. ais523's attempted action was a public document.
2. That public document is not subject to self-ratification, as it is
not a public document defined by the rules.
3. omd's claim of error had no rules-defined effect other than to
apply a SHOULD requirement on ais523.
4. ais523's attempted action was ambiguous in its referent: it could
refer either to the proposal with ID number 6830 ("We Don't Need No
Stinkin' Voting") or the proposal with the name "Distributed Proposal
5. Both are entities existing in Agora.
6. Only the latter entity has a distributability switch.
7. At the time of this judgement, CFJ 2859 has found that "Distributed
Proposal 6830" refers to the undistributed proposal with that name.
8. At the time of this judgement, CFJ 2859 is under appeal, with the
judge of that case supporting that appeal.
9. omd is the Pariah, and Rule 2312 applies to all players, including judges.
10. The Rules do not specify any SHOULD, SHALL, or other penalty
specifically regarding an inappropriate claim of error.
11. The Rules do specify a SHOULD specifically regarding inappropriate
judgements in Rule 2158.

Rule 1607/29 (Power=2) [excerpt]
The Promotor

      Distributability is switch possessed by proposals in the
      proposal pool, tracked by the Promotor, with values
      Undistributable (default) and Distributable.

Rule 1551/13 (Power=3) [excerpt]

      A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.

Rule 2201/4 (Power=3)

      A public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is
      ratified when it is continuously undoubted for one week.

      A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the following
      methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and
      nature of a perceived error in it:

       a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal

       b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact.  The
          publisher of the original document SHALL (if e was required
          to publish that document) or SHOULD (otherwise) do one of
          the following as soon as possible:

              i) Deny the claim (causing it to cease to be a doubt).
             ii) Publish a revision.
            iii) Initiate an inquiry case regarding the truth of the
                 claim (if the subject is actually a matter of law).

Rule 2312/0 (Power=1.7) [excerpt]
The Pariah

      Players are ENCOURAGED to enforce penalties for rules breaches
      against the Pariah, even really minor ones.

Rule 2158/9 (Power=2) [excerpt]
Judicial Questions

     ...  A judge SHOULD NOT assign an
      inappropriate judgement to any judicial question.  A judgement
      is valid and/or appropriate only as defined by the rules.

Rule 1504/47 (Power=2) [excerpt]
Criminal Cases

      * GUILTY, appropriate if the judge finds, beyond a reasonable
        doubt, that ALL of the following are true:
       (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the
           alleged act did not violate the specified rule;


Gratuitous Arguments by Taral:

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:35 PM, omd  wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Taral  wrote:
>> 9. omd is the Pariah, and Rule 2312 applies to all players, including
> No I'm not.

Oh? I was pretty sure I checked the records... things must have
changed on me. Thankfully it's not germane to the judgement.