Index ← 3643 CFJ 3644 3646 → text
===============================  CFJ 3644  ===============================

      Corona issued a humiliating public reminder in the below quoted


Caller:                        Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

Judge:                         G.
Judgement:                     TRUE



Called by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:        18 Jun 2018 17:27:32
Assigned to G.:                                   24 Jun 2018 21:48:55
Judged TRUE by G.:                                01 Jul 2018 18:02:20


Caller's Arguments:

I bring the attention of the Honourable Judge to CFJ 3585, which found
that no creativity was required and that Orjan's (I'm sorry I am unable
to type your name correctly on this computer) observation that it was
not very humiliating did not impact the fulfillment of the obligation.
However, I ask that the Honourable Judge observe that in that instance
no messages explicitly suggesting that one should not feel humiliated
were communicated, but in this instance, a message explicitly reassuring
that true humiliation was not intended explicitly appears at the bottom
of the message.


Caller's Evidence:

On 06/18/2018 10:38 AM, Corona wrote:
> I issue a humiliating public reminder to the following persons for not
> voting on the current Medals of Honour decision:
> Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Corona, VJ Rada, Kenyon, Ouri, twg,
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, omd, o, Quazie, pokes, 天火狐、
> Telnaior
> (Not really though, if you don't feel like either candidate deserves a
> medal, then just don't vote and I'll fail it)
> ~Corona


Judge's Arguments:

In general, a message doesn't automatically gain a quality because a
person says it does (that's the long-standing Agoran philosophy that "I
say it is" doesn't equate to "It is").  For example, as a lowest bar,
it's hard to claim "The following is a humiliating message:  have a nice
day" is actually humiliating to anyone.

However, for "humiliation", the question is "humiliating to whom?"
Shame is an emotion, and it's not possible for the sender of a message
to guarantee that anything that they could say would make the recipient
feel shame for a particular failure.  In the context of voting in
particular, if I really meant to vote on something and forgot, then a
simple "hey, you forgot to vote" (without mentioning humiliation) might
make me feel bad because I really meant to vote.  On the other hand,
allowing a vote to fail quorum is a valid legislative tactic.  If I'm
using that tactic on purpose by not voting, no amount of "you should
feel humiliated/ashamed" would actually accomplish the trick of making
me feel bad.

And even for the "have a nice day" example:  I was annoyed and snippy at
a retail clerk for some dumb reason recently.  They were very nice in
spite of that and said "have a nice day sir" when the transaction was
done, and it made me feel bad (and a bit humiliated) for being a jerk.
Context is everything.

So for the purposes of R2168, the actual phraseology (including
disclaimers!) doesn't matter.  As long as the message conveys that, by
R2168, the non-voters SHOULD generally reflect on whether their actions
are for the good of the game (via announcing that the message is
technically meant to flag behavior that *might* be shameful), it counts,
even with disclaimers.  This is as low a bar as we can reasonably set,
and it's very low and borders on "I say it is therefore it is", but the
alternative is trying to legislate/control how people should feel about
something, which isn't at all reasonable.  I find TRUE.