Index ← 3647 CFJ 3648 3649 → text
===============================  CFJ 3648  ===============================

      The fine levied on Corona for late Herald Tournament Regulations
      is unforgivable for the purposes of R2559.

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

Caller:                        G.

Judge:                         D. Margaux
Judgement:                     TRUE

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

History:

Called by G.:                                     24 Jun 2018 19:57:50
Assigned to ATMunn:                               24 Jun 2018 21:48:55
ATMunn Recused:                                   01 Aug 2018 03:38:12
Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:      01 Aug 2018 03:38:12
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus Recused:          26 Aug 2018 18:44:38
Assigned to V.J. Rada:                            26 Aug 2018 18:44:38
V.J. Rada Recused:                                01 Oct 2018 03:01:21
Assigned to D. Margaux:                           01 Oct 2018 03:01:21
Judged TRUE by D. Margaux:                        01 Oct 2018 15:27:03

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

Caller's Arguments:

R2559 reads in part:
>      2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
>         more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
>         levied on em for eir conduct in that office during that time,
>         the following assets are created in the possession of that
>         player:

"Unforgivable" isn't directly defined in the Ruleset.  The definition
is by inference in R2557:
>      Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the
>      investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable,
>      specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology.
which implies that violations that aren't forgivable are unforgivable.

However, R2557 defines "forgivable" in the context of imposing justice
as per an investigation of a finger-pointing.  The fine in question
was levied using R2479:
>      The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>      Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
>      of up to 2 blots on em.
which does not mention any notion of forgiveness.

There are two reasonable readings, I'm not sure which is correct:
  1. Since the fine isn't defined as forgivable, it's unforgivable.
  2. Since the rule under which the fine was levied do not mention the
     concept, the fine is neither forgivable nor unforgivable.

FWIW, I didn't think about it one way or the other when I imposed the
fine, if I'd thought about it I would have (tried to) specify it as
forgivable.


Caller's Evidence:

Published by G. on 20 Jun 2018 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT):
> I impose summary judgement as follows:  I levy a fine of 2 Blots on
> Corona for failure to propose a set of Birthday Regulations in a timely
> fashion after June 1 (R2495).

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

Judge D. Margaux's Arguments:

The question presented is whether a fine imposed by summary judgement is
ipso facto "unforgiveable" for purposes of R2559.

Under R2559, an officer loses eir monthly salary if an "unforgiveable 
fine" was imposed on em for eir conduct in office during that month.  Rule 
2557 also provides that, in investigating a Pointed Finger, an 
investigator "CAN specify that the violation is forgivable."

As can be seen from these Rules, it appears that "forgiveable" is a 
possible attribute of a violation and "unforgiveable" is a possible
attribute of a fine.  The Rules do not expressly define the relationship
(if any) between "unforgiveable fines" and "forgivable violations."  As a
result, we may augment the interpretation with game custom, prior 
judgements, and common sense.

Game custom establishes that if the investigator of a Pointed Finger
announces that the violation is forgivable, then the resulting fine is
deemed to be not unforgivable.  In addition, game custom establishes that,
if the investigator of a Pointed Finger does not specify whether the
violation is forgiveable, then the resulting fine is considered to be
unforgiveable.  That result is consistent with common sense, and seems
appropriate and in the best interests of the game.

This case presents an added wrinkle: the Rules permit the Referee to levy 
a fine for a violation by summary judgement, but in that case the Rules do
not establish any method for the Referee to specify whether the violation
was forgiveable or, perhaps relatedly, whether the resulting fine was
unforgiveable.

In my view, this implies that the fine resulting from summary judgement is
necessarily unforgiveable.  When a fine is imposed by Pointed Finger, it 
is deemed unforgiveable unless the investigator affirmatively determines 
that the violation is forgiveable.  That indicates that, by default, 
violations are considered to be not forgiveable and resulting fines are 
considered to be unforgiveable.  There is no method for the Referee on 
summary judgement to determine a violation to be forgiveable, and, as a 
result, the default outcome is that the resulting fine is unforgiveable.

The fine levied on Corona for late Herald Tournament Regulations was
imposed by summary judgement and, as a result, is unforgivable for the
purposes of R2559.

JUDGED TRUE.

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