OscarMeyr wrote:
b) comex referred to R2149 in eir arguments, and presented no other
rule in the message as provided to this CFJ. A statement in the CFJ
argument is not a clear designation in the CFJ statement proper of the
rule allegedly breached. FAIL
Criminal cases don't have statements, only inquiry cases do. The
required elements can be covered in statement form ("X breached/violated
Rule Y by doing Z"), and were covered that way before Zefram's
formalization of criminal cases, and the CotC DB still shoehorns them
into that form (to avoid a major code rewrite for relatively little
gain), but none of that actually makes them statements.
Rule 1504 requires the "announcement" to specify the rule allegedly
breached, and explicitly recognizes the "argument for eir guilt" (by
requiring the CotC to invite the defendant to rebut it). I fear that
the precedent of interpreting "announcement" narrowly enough to lead
to your proto-FALSE judgement would risk breaking other things as well.
