========================= Criminal Case 2915 =========================
Wooble violated Rule 2230, committing the Class-4 Crime of Libel, by
publishing an NoV alleging that I published a Claim of Error
regarding the previous week's ATC report, despite information to the
contrary being readily available and therefore knowing that I did
Judgement: NOT GUILTY
Called by Yally: 01 Dec 2010 22:15:05 GMT
Defendant Wooble informed: 01 Dec 2010 22:15:05 GMT
Assigned to scshunt: 12 Dec 2010 23:10:31 GMT
scshunt recused: 09 Jan 2011 19:35:40 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 10 Jan 2011 00:51:39 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by Murphy: 11 Jan 2011 08:57:39 GMT
Wooble could have easily determined that each of these NoVs contained
incorrect information. While nobody can say for sure whether Wooble
legitamitely thought eir information was valid or not, the fact that
Wooble has played the game for a considerable length of time suggests
that e would know how to acquire the correct information, did so, and
then intentionally published incorrect information. This idea is
supported by the fact that Wooble was attempting to seek revenge on me
for initiating another NoV.
Too, at least one of these Libel cases must hold because Wooble
published in the same message that I both failed to publish the ATC's
report AND that I CoEd the same ATC's report that I supposedly did not
even publish. It's clearly mpossible for both of these things to be
true. Therefore, e MUST have known that at least one of these NoVs
contained incorrect information.
> I publish an NoV alleging that Yally violated R2143, committing the
> Class 2 crime of Tardiness, by failing to publish the ATC's report
> last week.
> I pay a fee to publish an NoV alleging that Yally violated the Power 3
> Rule 2201 by failing, as soon as possible after e published a Claim of
> Error regarding the previoys week's ATC report, to either deny the
> claim, publish a corrected report, or call a CFJ regarding the
> accuracy of the report.
Gratuitous Evidence by Wooble:
The IADoP's report of 29 November reports that the ATC's report was
last published on 21 November, and that it was late. Yally did CoE the
report published on that day, and either I did believe (unreasonably,
yes, but that's not part of the standard of proof for Libel) my
allegations, or I deliberately falsified the IADoP's report days
earlier so I could later falsely accuse em of 2 crimes after e accused
me of one. This probably also implied I conspired to leave G. off the
Registrar's list of past registrations of current players to entrap em
into NoVing me so I could NoV in revenge.
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
First, the facts.
1) As the defendant points out, Libel requires knowing that you're
lying (R2230) before R1504(a) is satisfied.
2) Yally published and admitted two CoEs on eir November 21 ATC
report, one to a-o on November 21 at 20:38:23 UTC, another
to a-b on November 21 at 20:40:38 UTC. There were no CoEs on
eir November 22 ATC report.
3) Wooble's IADoP report, published November 29 at 19:32:07 UTC,
claims that the last ATC report was published on November 21,
and that no ATC report was published during the week of
4) Wooble's alleged acts of Libel were published on November 30
at 23:16:08 UTC, at which time eir error in #3 had not yet been
It's reasonable to assume that Wooble believed #3 at the time, and still
believed it at the time of #4. (#4 shows that Wooble noticed at least
one of the CoEs from #2, but not that e noticed the November 22 ATC
report.) I judge CFJ 2914 NOT GUILTY.
Upon reflection, it appears most likely that Wooble intended "previous
week" in eir second NoV to be parsed as "previous to last week [from
eir first NoV]" (thus referring to the November 21 ATC report, which
existed and e knew it did per #3), and that e saw at least one of the
CoEs from #2 but missed that it was admitted in the same message. I
judge CFJ 2915 NOT GUILTY.