========================= Criminal Case 2866 =========================
Keba violated Rule 2143 and committed the Class-2 Crime of Tardiness
by failing to publish the List of Succession in the week beginning
on September 6 of this year.
Judgement: NOT GUILTY
Called by scshunt: 17 Sep 2010 16:21:56 GMT
Defendant Keba informed: 17 Sep 2010 16:21:56 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 22 Sep 2010 14:21:09 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by ais523: 26 Sep 2010 15:27:28 GMT
There are five conditions for being guilty.
Now, conditions (b) and (c) are trivial and won't be discussed. (e) is
true as Keba could have chosen not to assume Herald and therefore would
have avoided the breach (and left G. to make the breach).
Since the violation depends on a technicality (that I will describe)
that Keba probably was not aware of, one could argue that (d) is not
satisfied. However, CFJs 1857 and 1858, as well as convention, provide
that ignorance of the law is not appropriate grounds for finding someone
to not be guilty of a violation. This extends to the technicality; it
was Keba's duty, assumed as Herald, to know the relevant rules in their
Now, for the controversial bit. Rule 2315 says that "[the list published
by the Herald to bootstrap] becomes the List of Succession." It does not
say that the List of Succession becomes the same as the bootstrap list,
it does not say that it is reordered to match. Rather, it says that
/that specific list/ became the List of Succession.
This has two main consequences:
The first is that a legal fiction is created that the message containing
the bootstrap list keeps changing.
The second is that it is impossible to publish the List of Succession,
as it would only be a copy.
Therefore, the alleged List of Succession report in the aforementioned
week was not actually a publication of the List of Succession, and thus
a failure to perform duties.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
The interpretation suggested by the caller is absurd.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
Gratuitous absurd consequence: in which case, the original list was never
because the list which arrived on the server and the one in each of your
archives is merely a copy and sad reflection of the original ur-list that I
Gratuitous Arguments by Wooble:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 4:09 PM, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Sean Hunt
>> On 09/17/2010 01:05 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>> Gratuitous: The interpretation suggested by the caller is absurd.
>> Would you prefer the interpretation that the list published in the message
>> was rearranged to match the List of Succession.
> The meaning of "A becomes B" can depend on context. Although "A
> becomes B" usually means "A is set to B", if A is naturally immutable
> and B is naturally mutable, the obviously correct reading is "B is set
> to A".
Gratuitous: If I say "omd becomes the Speaker", I don't mean that omd
is now Keba.
Judge ais523's Arguments:
I judge CFJ 2866 NOT GUILTY. As omd says, the interpretation suggested
by the caller is absurd; for a criminal case, it's not necessary to
judge whether it's actually correct or not, but merely if it's
reasonable to assume that the interpretation is correct (because then
the player can perform the action in question with a reasonable belief
that it compiles with all relevant rules); and I rule that it is.