I'm unclear as to why we need a separate CFJ on how to interpret the accusation in the first CFJ; isn't that a matter for the trial judge in the first CFJ?
On 8/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hereby call for judgement (of the inquiry variety), barring comex, on > the statement: in CFJ 1715, the alleged act is illegal but impossible. > Arguments: > > comex initiated CFJ 1715 by a message reading in part: > > |I initiate the following criminal cases with a defendant of Peekee, and > |request that the CotC perform linked assignments: > | > |* Peekee has violated Rule 754 by sending communication with little > |regularity. > > Rule 1504 lists the items that must be present to initiate a criminal > case: > > A criminal case CAN be initiated by any player, by announcement > which clearly identifies the defendant and specifies the action > (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the > defendant allegedly breached the rules. > > The elements, then, are a defendant and an alleged act (the charge). > comex's message clearly identifies the defendant as Peekee, and specifies > the charge by the allegation: > > |* Peekee has violated Rule 754 by sending communication with little > |regularity. > > Rule 754, being of a definitional nature, imposes no obligations on > anyone, and so cannot be violated. Clearly Peekee has not violated > the rules here, and should be acquitted in CFJ 1715. This clarity is > convenient in considering the matter of this inquiry. The issue here > is which parts of the above-quoted sentence constitute the charge, > and hence in which manner Peekee should be acquitted. > > The first possible interpretation is that the alleged act is sending > communication with little regularity. Peekee may well have performed this > act, depending on the interpretation of "regularity". (Peekee touched > on this ambiguity in eir defence.) Supposing Peekee did indeed perform > this act, e could not be found INNOCENT. E would instead be acquitted > as UNIMPUGNED, because sending communications with little regularity is > not prohibited by the rules. > > The second possible interpretation is that the alleged act is violating > Rule 754 by sending communication with little regularity. Or, putting > it the other way round, sending communication with little regularity in > violation of Rule 754. In this case, the alleged act is by construction > illegal. The qualifier "in violation of rule N" or enclosing clause > "violating rule N by" narrows down the allegation to something that > is specifically illegal. In this case Peekee could not be UNIMPUGNED. > Indeed, e is directly impugned by the allegation that e violated rule 754. > However, as it is not possible to violate rule 754, and in particular is > impossible to violate it by sending communication with little regularity, > Peekee cannot have performed this alleged act, and so is INNOCENT. > > The overall effect of the criminal case is the same either way (an > acquittal), but rule 1504 distinguish several flavours of acquittal, > and so the interpretation of the charge is significant. I suggest that > the second interpretation is preferable, because it matches the charge > as presented by the prosecutor, whereas the first interpretation throws > away a relevant part of that sentence. > > -zefram > -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
