On 5/2/2021 3:00 am, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > The crime is "Unjustified Gesticulation", not "Shenanigans", dohohoho! > > I point my finger at Cuddlebeam for committing the crime of Unjustified > Gesticulation, > in violation of Rule 2478, for initiating the finger-pointing about Rule > 869 later found to be shenanigans. > > > I point my finger at Cuddlebeam for committing the crime of Unjustified > Gesticulation, > in violation of Rule 2478, for initiating the finger-pointing about Rule > 2478 later found to be shenanigans.
It is understood that the judgement of the pending CFJ would impact on whether my following actions are effective. Given that the deadline judging the CFJ is considerably latter than that for resolving these finger-pointings, to exercise the highest reasonable standard of care would require me to proceed by assuming that they succeeded. Given this assumption, the state of the evidence is indisputable with regard to whether Cuddlebeam committed both crimes. I issue a warning to Cuddlebeam for the Class 0 Crime of Unjustified Gesticulation. I impose the cold hand of justice on Cuddlebeam for the Class 1 Crime of Unjustified Gesticulation, levying a fine of 1 blot. -- JTAC Referee
