========================= Criminal Case 3318 =========================
Murphy violated Rule 2143 by failing to report on the PVN and on
Virtue last week.
Judgement: NOT GUILTY
Called by scshunt: 06 May 2013 14:18:37 GMT
Defendant Murphy informed: 06 May 2013 14:18:37 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli: 12 May 2013 22:02:34 GMT
Machiavelli recused: 13 May 2013 22:38:10 GMT
Assigned to Wes: 27 May 2013 22:27:57 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by Wes: 29 May 2013 18:09:34 GMT
Appealed by scshunt: 29 May 2013 18:12:44 GMT
Appealed by omd: 29 May 2013 19:18:15 GMT
Appealed by Walker: 29 May 2013 20:51:43 GMT
Appeal 3318a: 29 May 2013 20:51:43 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 09 Jun 2013 18:02:47 GMT
Assigned to Wes: 09 Jun 2013 18:02:47 GMT
Wes recused: 22 Jun 2013 18:59:07 GMT
Assigned to G.: 22 Jun 2013 18:59:07 GMT
Judged GUILTY/DISCHARGE by G.: 23 Jun 2013 17:46:07 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
1) To my knowledge, PVN is not required to be reported.
2) To my knowledge, each player's Virtue is at its default value and is
thus not required to be reported.
Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:
The Police Vigilance Number (PVN) is an integer tracked by the
CotC. Virtue is a person switch tracked by the CotC, with
values Virtuous (default) and Unvirtuous.
If the rules define a report as including a list, then while
that list is empty, that report includes the fact that it is
Ignorance of the rules is not a defence.
Gratuitous Arguments by Wes:
This CFJ involves two allegations with subtle but important
differences between them, and so we shall address each allegation
Rule 2356 defines the Police Vigilance Number (PVN) as "an integer
tracked by the CotC." This clearly requires the CotC to be aware of
the current value of the PVN, but we can find no Rules reference
requiring that this value be reported in any way.
An argument could be made that "track" is somehow synonymous with a
requirement to include the information in a report. We contest this
claim, noting that Rule 2162 addresses the reporting of Switch values
which are tracked by an Office, while no Rule addresses the reporting
of any values other than Switches which are tracked by an Office.
Similarly, Patent Titles are tracked by the Herald without being a
Switch, and Rule 649 explicitly defines the associated reporting
requirements. This would appear to reinforce our conclusion that a
requirement to track an entity must also include an explicit
requirement to report on said entity, else such a requirement does not
Rule 2356 further defines Virtue as "a person switch tracked by the
CotC, with values Virtuous (default) and Unvirtuous." As this is a
Switch, Rule 2162 adds an associated reporting requirement: "That
officer's report includes the value of each instance of that switch
whose value is not its default value." Thus, the CotC is indeed
required to report any Virtue Switches which are not Virtuous.
Currently, there are no such Switches, and so there is no requirement
to report any Virtue Switch values.
The caller's argument is that these two Rules are equivalent to a
requirement to publish a list, as defined in Rule 2379, which states
"If the rules define a report as including a list, then while that
list is empty, that report includes the fact that it is empty." We
will note, however, that Rule 2139 ("a list of all Players"), Rule
2166 ("a list of all instances of that class and their owners"), Rule
2388 ("The Dictionary is a list of common terms and shorthands"), Rule
2350 ("a list of co-authors"), Rule 1607 ("a list of all proposals in
the Proposal Pool"), and Rule 649 ("a list of each Patent Title that
at least one entity Bears") all explicitly define a series of values
as a "list," while no Rule does the same for the value of this, or
As such, we find that the Rules do not compel the CotC to include the
PVN in eir report, nor do the Rules compel any reporting around Virtue
Switch values until and unless one or more Virtue Switches have a
non-default value. We would, however, encourage the CotC to include
this data in eir report as a convenience to other Players.
Judge Wes's Arguments:
Our verdict is therefore NOT GUILTY.
Appellant scshunt's Arguments:
I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment, as the judge did not
consider precedent, common sense, or the good of the game in interpreting the
Appellant omd's Arguments:
I support. It is unreasonable to interpret "tracked by X" as a
requirement that X personally keep track of something, as it is never
the style of this ruleset to write a requirement that someone do
something as a bare statement that e does it, and prima facie, we
should assume that a given clause does not mean to govern unknowable
matters such as a person's mental processes (although there are
exceptions such as R1504 (d)). That "tracking" something refers to
reporting on it is solidified not only by its definition in the
context of switches, but the use in multiple rules (1871, 2340) of the
wording "tracked by in ". Rule 649's summary of the
Herald's duty to track Patent Titles, which is then described in
detail later on (that rule, for the record, is a fairly old piece of
drafting) should be considered analogous to Rule 693's summary of the
steps of an Agoran decision, which are described in other rules: the
detailed explanation overrides the summary, but if the summary were to
be present alone in the ruleset, we would still have to follow it as
closely as possible.
The argument about lists of things is more reasonable, but it should
be noted that that clause was added specifically to address reports on
switches whose instances were all at their default values.
Judge G.'s Arguments:
First, PVN and Virtue reporting are two separate things. Along the
lines of CFJ 3336 allowing separate acts to be bundled into a single
criminal trial, I'll treat these as severable (i.e., not treat "PVN and
Virtue reporting" as a single logical, which is not a defined duty).
PVN And Virtue are different. PVN is not a switch and is not a defined
part of any report. As I stated as an Appeals Justice, the reasonable
standard for tracking is that the tracker be able to demonstrate within
a reasonable time after a request that e is tracking it (a report is
a very handy way to do this, but not required). As this is generally
new territory (first judicial decision on tracking things that aren't
in reports), there's no reason Murphy should be expected to know this,
so for PVN e would be not guilty due to R1504(d).
Virtue is a switch, however, and thus part of a report. Rule 2379
makes it clear that the empty list must be reported, and Murphy, as an
officer, should have been aware of this. Therefore I find no defense
that would mitigate GUILTY.
In terms of punishment, there are a couple mitigating factors:
(1) It is easy to miss without a reminder, and (2) Murphy has been
specifically removed from holding postulated office for other lapses
in service. Therefore, I find e has seen sufficient punishment for
recent lapses overall.
Final decision: GUILTY/DISCHARGE.