============================== CFJ 3509 ==============================
o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan.
Called by Gaelan: 23 May 2017
Assigned to CuddleBeam: 24 May 2017
CuddleBeam Recused: 28 Jun 2017
Assigned to Murphy: 28 Jun 2017
Judged TRUE by Murphy: 29 Jun 2017
I don't believe I committed a crime. o claimed that I committed
Forgery; there is no crime named 'Forgery' in the ruleset, the only
match in the SLR for 'forgery' is the crime of Endorsing Forgery
('Ratification Without Objection' 2202/6). There are several problems
There is no crime named Forgery.
I explicitly noted that the attempt at apathy was separate from the
report, therefore (assuming that worked) it was not within a ratified
Reports are self-ratified, not ratified without objection.
Therefore, there is no evidence that I broke the rules. Even so, a
Pink Slip is not appropriate. 2476/0 'Pink Slips' states that a pink
slip is appropriate "for abuses of official power for personal
gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless the reason indicates the
specific office or offices whose power was abused." The ability to
send long messages to a public forum in which one could hide a
dependent action is not a power granted to the Rulekeepor by the
rules; it provides an alibi, but that is not a rule-defined power.
I believe it is very clear that the issuance of the Pink Slip was
against the rules. However, the rules regarding Cards is a mishmash
of CAN NOTs and SHALL NOTs, and I'm not sure if any of the CAN NOTs
were triggered, hence the two CFJs.
(Carding message from o, 21 May 2017):
> On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele
> The following section is not a portion of the report:
> For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is "I intend,
> without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself."
> I execute The Sentence, substituting [word] for a word
> beginning with "ap" that is a synonym for "not caring."
This appears to be an attempt to abuse the office of Rulekeepor
for personal gain, in the form of initiating a victory by Apathy
for Gaelan while hiding it within the voluminous reports required
of eir office. That the attempt may not succeed does not justify
eir intentions. Accordingly, I issue Gaelan a Pink Slip for abuse
of the office of Rulekeepor for the crime of Forgery.
Gaelan: in spite of this censure, you remain Rulekeepor. I leave
it to the discretion of Agora as a whole whether you should hold
that office in light of this serious offence. Within the next
seven days, any player may, with two support, take over an office
which you hold. I stand aside, and will not support usurpation,
but neither will I object. The office of Rulekeepor is essential
to the functioning of Agora as a Nomic, and by abusing your
authority to publish reports and compromising the trust players
place in their content, you have put the integrity of the game at
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
Taking things step by step:
* Rule 2426 (Cards) says "A type of Card may have a defined set of
circumstances for which it is appropriate". Such a type of Card is
only appropriate in those circumstances.
* Pink Cards are such a type.
* Those circumstances did not hold here. Being able to publish the
Rulesets without it automatically seeming suspicious is merely a
circumstance of being Rulekeepor, not something that the rules
directly empower em to do. If the Rulekeepor is late reporting, then
anyone could deputise to do it (and that also wouldn't automatically
seem suspicious), which is still a circumstance of the office but
applies to someone who started out not holding it.
* So the Pink Card was not appropriate, and issuing it violated Rule
2426's final SHALL NOT.
* All rule violations are offenses, and thus cardable as at least one
of Green/Yellow/Red, though which are appropriate is subjective.
Gaelan certainly abused this circumstance of being Rulekeepor, but
that's not what Pink Cards currently address. Possibly that rule should
be amended to broaden their scope.