On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Taral <tar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I set the II of this case to 1.
> I intend, without 3 objections, to set the II of this case to 2.
I set the II of CFJ 2860 to 2.
Findings of fact:
1. ais523's attempted action was a public document.
2. That public document is not subject to self-ratification, as it is
not a public document defined by the rules.
3. omd's claim of error had no rules-defined effect other than to
apply a SHOULD requirement on ais523.
4. ais523's attempted action was ambiguous in its referent: it could
refer either to the proposal with ID number 6830 ("We Don't Need No
Stinkin' Voting") or the proposal with the name "Distributed Proposal
6830".
5. Both are entities existing in Agora.
6. Only the latter entity has a distributability switch.
7. At the time of this judgement, CFJ 2859 has found that "Distributed
Proposal 6830" refers to the undistributed proposal with that name.
8. At the time of this judgement, CFJ 2859 is under appeal, with the
judge of that case supporting that appeal.
9. omd is the Pariah, and Rule 2312 applies to all players, including judges.
10. The Rules do not specify any SHOULD, SHALL, or other penalty
specifically regarding an inappropriate claim of error.
11. The Rules do specify a SHOULD specifically regarding inappropriate
judgements in Rule 2158.
Arguments and decision:
It is quite clear that there is a significant question of legal
interpretation here. Given that there is no clear correct
interpretation of rule 2201 and that there is an interpretation of
rule 2201 such that omd did not violate it, it is entirely reasonable
that omd would have thought e was not violating rule 2201.
The question on culpability in CFJ 2860 is judged NOT GUILTY by 1504(d).
As a note: despite omd's status as Pariah, the Court has no
flexibility as to the question on culpability. Were omd GUILTY, Rule
2132 might apply, but the Court declines to issue any opinion on that
matter.
Evidence and references:
Rule 1607/29 (Power=2) [excerpt]
The Promotor
Distributability is switch possessed by proposals in the
proposal pool, tracked by the Promotor, with values
Undistributable (default) and Distributable.
Rule 1551/13 (Power=3) [excerpt]
Ratification
A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.
Rule 2201/4 (Power=3)
Self-Ratification
A public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is
ratified when it is continuously undoubted for one week.
A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the following
methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and
nature of a perceived error in it:
a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal
interpretation.
b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The
publisher of the original document SHALL (if e was required
to publish that document) or SHOULD (otherwise) do one of
the following as soon as possible:
i) Deny the claim (causing it to cease to be a doubt).
ii) Publish a revision.
iii) Initiate an inquiry case regarding the truth of the
claim (if the subject is actually a matter of law).
Rule 2312/0 (Power=1.7) [excerpt]
The Pariah
Players are ENCOURAGED to enforce penalties for rules breaches
against the Pariah, even really minor ones.
Rule 2158/9 (Power=2) [excerpt]
Judicial Questions
... A judge SHOULD NOT assign an
inappropriate judgement to any judicial question. A judgement
is valid and/or appropriate only as defined by the rules.
Rule 1504/47 (Power=2) [excerpt]
Criminal Cases
* GUILTY, appropriate if the judge finds, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that ALL of the following are true:
(d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the
alleged act did not violate the specified rule;
--
Taral <tar...@gmail.com>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
