=============================== CFJ 3762 ===============================
The investigator of the Finger-pointing done in this message CAN
impose a fine on Jason Cobb for the Crime of Oathbreaking for the
pledge in evidence.
Caller: Jason Cobb
Called by Jason Cobb: 24 Jul 2019 06:34:12
Assigned to twg: 03 Aug 2019 00:10:53
Breaking of the pledge: [message in which I create this CFJ]
> I pledge, under penalty of a Class 0 Crime, not to make any pledges for
> the next 5 seconds.
> I point my finger at Jason Cobb for the Class 0 Crime of Oathbreaking.
> I fully admit that I am guilty of the above accusation.
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 ("Sentencing Guidelines"):
> When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand
> of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine of B on
> the perp by announcement, within the following guidelines:
> - B is at least 1 and at most twice the base value of the
> - 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.
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). E is authorized
to impose the CHoJ, and, under Rule 2557, therefore e CAN impose a fine
on the perp (with certain specified numerical bounds, but we'll get to
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 of at least 1 and of at most 0. 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 levy a fine.
At this point, I will attempt to argue what I think the judgement should
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).
That leaves TRUE, FALSE, and PARADOXICAL.
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 (to levy
a fine) would NOT be successful.
Regarding FALSE: I think this might be a valid outcome, but the Rules
explicitly state that the investigator CAN levy a fine, 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.