Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Per the judgement of CFJ 1703, comex's claim was false. However,
only "deliberately or recklessly" making a false statement
violates Rule 2149, and per the judgement of CFJ 1699, comex
did neither. Accordingly, I judge UNIMPUGNED.
You seem to have misunderstood the available verdicts, and possibly also
the charge.
I intended the charge to be interpreted as "doing that which R2149
prohibits, on this particular occasion". Doing that would certainly
be a rule violation, so UNIMPUGNED would not be an appropriate verdict.
If comex has not violated the rule then e has not done what e was charged
with, and so a verdict of INNOCENT would be appropriate.
If you ignore the "violating rule 2149 by" part of the charge, then the
(as you point out) the charge is not sufficiently specific to make the
action it describes necessarily illegal. In that case a judgement of
UNIMPUGNED is appropriate, and what comex did is irrelevant to that.
Your judgement mixes parts of these two scenarios. What reasoning did
you intend?
The latter.
Rule 1504 requires the initiator to specify "the action ... by which the
defendant allegedly breached the rules". I do not consider "violated
rule X" to be part of this specification; if it were, then UNIMPUGNED
would be trivially inappropriate for any case using that phrasing.
A case avoiding that phrasing is possible, e.g. in this hypothetical
example:
"I hereby initiate a criminal case. The defendant is Zefram, and
the action is wearing a hat."
but this has a different problem, i.e. the judge must consider the
entire ruleset and determine whether the action violates any rule.
Rule 1504 should probably be amended to require a separate specification
of the rule allegedly violated. But this has problems, too: What if
multiple rules are allegedly violated? What if the defendant is found
to have breached some of them, but not others?
