Index ← 3565 CFJ 3566 3567 → text
===============================  CFJ 3566  ===============================

      The Pink Slip below issued is both INEFFECTIVE and ILLEGAL.

==========================================================================

Caller:                        V.J. Rada

Judge:                         Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Judgement:                     FALSE

==========================================================================

History:

Called by V.J. Rada:                              27 Sep 2017 02:47:52
Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:      01 Oct 2017 17:39:36
Judged TRUE by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:   08 Oct 2017 18:21:47
Motion to Reconsider filed:                       08 Oct 2017 23:34:30
Judged FALSE by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:  12 Oct 2017 10:53:54

==========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> As it happens, I have just enough cards left to deal with both this and 
> Alexis’ finger before I run out for the week, and now that the proposal 
fixing the “or” in Vigilante Justice has been assessed, finger-pointing 
actually somewhat works again. Hooray!
>
> On Sep 26, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>> This is absurd.  Was going to let it pass, but I point the Finger at 
Nichdel
>> for late Assessment of Decision to Adopt proposal 7876.
>>
>> I note, for the purposes of determining carding, that this lateness had 
a
>> direct and material impact on my own earnings as well as others.
>
> And on mine, which causes a minor conflict of interest. However, no rule 
allows me to recuse myself, and this is not a finger-pointing related the 
official duties or powers of the Referee, so the Arbitor cannot take over. 
I’ll have to do my best.
>
> Proposal 7876 was distributed on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 01:19:41 UTC. As 
voting was not extended, voting ended at Mon, 18 Sep 2017 01:19:41 UTC, 
exactly 7d after distribution (rule 107, “Initiating Agoran Decisions").
>
> nichdel assessed it at Tue, 26 Sep 2017 19:49:53 UTC. 8d, 18h 30m 12s 
elapsed from the close of voting to the proposal's assessment. Rule 208 
(“Resolving Agoran Decisions”) states:
>
>> The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by 
announcement, indicating the outcome. If it was required to be initiated, 
then e SHALL resolve it in a timely fashion after the end of the voting 
period.
>
> nichdel, as Assessor, was the vote collector for the Agoran Decision to 
adopt proposal 7876. As more than seven days had elapsed (rule 1023, 
“Common Definitions”), e did not do so in a timely fashion, and has 
violated the above clause of rule 208.
>
> G.’s allegation that the late assessment has a direct and material 
impact on gameplay is compelling. Furthermore, beyond the effects G. 
identifies, Assessment directly affects the adoption of rule changes, 
which are fundamental to Agora. However, I believe a Yellow Card would be 
inappropriate, and unduly punitive. Instead, I note that nichdel delayed 
assessment for reasons e spelled out in a message to agora-discussion:
>
> On Sep 20, 2017, at 4:07 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>
>> Due to a stressful trip coming up this weekend and the size of the
>> current batch of proposals, I'm unlikely to be able to assess until mid
>> next week. If there's interest, I could create an agency that allows
>> someone else to assess.
>
> nichdel clearly delayed assessment for eir own gain, vis., to gain 
additional time and attention to dedicate to a personal trip. As such, e 
has abused the office of Assessor, and I hereby issue em a Pink Slip by 
summary judgement.
>
> On Sep 26, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>> I note to the Referee, so e can feel informed and NOT believe that 
there are
>> no rules violations this week, that Nichdel was similarly late on 
proposals
>> 7877-7898.
>
> So noted.
>
> -o
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Publius Scribonius Scholasticus' Arguments:

(initial judgement)
I find CFJ 3566 TRUE. The issued card was not appropriate because no 
action was taken. Due to its inappropriateness, it was ILLEGAL as a
violation of Rule 2426. However, I believe given the nature of the 
lateness of the report, a serious card was warranted and I recommend that 
it be issued. I would also like to specify that the Caller's Argument that 
his argument is supported by game custom should not be taken into account 
in future card issuances because card issuances are not bound by game 
custom.

(judgement upon reconsideration)
In reconsideration of the judgment, I judge CFJ 3566 FALSE. The pink slip 
was INEFFECTIVE, therefore it could not have been ILLEGAL.

==========================================================================