Index ← 3910 CFJ 3911 3912 → text
===============================  CFJ 3911  ===============================

      For the purposes of R2553, CFJ 3907 is about the effectiveness,
      possibility, or legality of a change in the gamestate.

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

Caller:                        G.
Barred:                        Gaelan

Judge:                         Murphy
Judgement:                     TRUE

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

History:

Called by G.:                                     05 Jun 2021 21:58:39
Assigned to Murphy:                               06 Jun 2021 16:18:00
Judged TRUE by Murphy:                            06 Jun 2021 20:46:44

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

Caller's Evidence:

https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3907


Caller's Arguments:

Gaelan wrote:
> The fact that I violated the rules has a direct impact on the
> effectiveness, legality, etc of our various criminal-justice
> mechanisms, so I'd argue TRUE. If necessary, I would just call
> another CFJ along the lines of "it's possible to give me blots
> for violating that pledge".

That answer's trivial - it's not possible, because you can't actually be
blotted for an indeterminate crime:

Rule 2531
>     Any attempt to levy a fine pursuant to the imposition of the Cold
>     Hand of Justice is INEFFECTIVE if:
>       (1) it attempts to levy a fine on a person when that person
>           can't be established by a preponderance of the evidence to
>           have committed the action or inaction for which the fine was
>           levied;

This protection makes it irrelevant.

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

It is about the possibility of Gaelan violating one of the pledges in
question (which would itself be a change in the gamestate, separate from
any possible punishment arising from it). In particular, Gaelan took at
least one action within the first pledge's time window (namely
publishing the second pledge).

As usual for paradox wins, I believe that the rules should now be
legislatively error-trapped to prevent arbitrary repetition of these
actions, but a paradox win for the first instance is warranted.

I judge TRUE.

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