Index ← 3742 CFJ 3743 3744 → text
===============================  CFJ 3743  ===============================

      The investigator of the Finger-pointing done in this message CAN
      impose a fine on Jason Cobb for the Crime of Oathbreaking.


Caller:                        Jason Cobb

Judge:                         omd
Judgement:                     FALSE



Called by Jason Cobb:                             23 Jun 2019 04:43:29
Assigned to omd:                                  30 Jun 2019 20:01:15
Judged FALSE by omd:                              03 Jul 2019 04:38:39


Caller's Arguments:

Under Rule 2450, I have violated an Oath by making an Oath after I had
made an Oath not to make any Oaths (how fun). The Oath explicitly states
that the Oath was under penalty of a Class 0 Crime. Thus, under Rule
2450, I am guilty of the Class 0 Crime of Oathbreaking. Thus, under Rule
2478 ("Vigilante Justice", not quoted here), the investigator CAN (and
SHALL) impose the Cold Hand of Justice on the perp (me). Under Rule
2557, e is authorized to impose the CHoJ, therefore e CAN impose a fine
on the perp (with certain specified numerical bounds, but we'll get to
that later).

I note that the Rules do not explicitly state that N in a Class N crime
must be positive, or even an integer. I thus argue that a Class 0 Crime
is a thing that can happen.

Since the crime committed was a Class 0 Crime, the base value for the
crime (in Rule 2557's parlance) is 0. Thus, under Rule 2557, the
investigator CAN levy a fine on me with a minimum of 1 (Blot) and a
maximum of 0 (Blots). This is a mathematical impossibility. There is no
valid number of Blots that the investigator CAN fine me, yet the Rules
assert that e CAN impose a fine.

At this point, I will attempt to argue what I think the resolution
should be.

I think this is clearly not IRRELEVANT. I don't believe this is
INSUFFICIENT, as I have (hopefully) provided everything that supports my
argument. I don't think it should be DISMISS (this statement is not
malformed, sufficient information does exist to make a judgment, and the
judge clearly can assign a valid judgment).


The following is admittedly somewhat shaky, but here it goes:

I know of no rules or precedent that states what happens when the Rules
require a mathematical impossibility. The Rules also do not state
whether or not the rules of math take precedence over the Rules.

Regarding TRUE: The Rules define "CAN" as "Attempts to perform the
described action are successful." This does not describe applying a fine
here, as there is no valid number of Blots that I could be fined that
would be permitted under Rule 2557. Thus any attempts to do so would NOT
be successful.

Regarding FALSE: I think this might be a valid outcome, but the Rules
explicitly state that the investigator CAN do so, so who are we to tell
the Rules that they are wrong?

Regarding PARADOXICAL: I think this might be a valid outcome. Both TRUE
and FALSE have significant issues, as I have described above. The Rules
state that a person CAN do something that is mathematically impossible
to do. That sounds like a paradox to me. 


Caller's Evidence

Excerpt from Rule 2450 ("Pledges"):

If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
pledge explicitly states otherwise.

Excerpt from Rule 2557 ("Removing Blots"):

When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand
of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the
perp with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of the
violation, within the following guidelines:
- If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime,
then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is 2.


Judge omd's Arguments:

On 7/2/19 10:45 PM, James Cook wrote:
> Gratuitous argument:
> As far as I know, finger-pointing still isn't fixed. CFJ 3736
> determined that the Referee CANNOT levy a fine.
> Proposal 8181 is supposed to fix it, but D. Margaux's attempt to
> resolve it on June 22 failed because it didn't list Telnaior's votes,
> as G. noted in a CoE a few hours later.

I judge both CFJ 3743 and CFJ 3753 FALSE, with the above-quoted
messages as evidence.