Dang it; you are absolutely right, and I didn't consider that.
Note to judge omd: this applies just as well to CFJ 3743. Jason Cobb On 7/2/19 10:45 PM, James Cook wrote:
Gratuitous argument: As far as I know, finger-pointing still isn't fixed. CFJ 3736 determined that the Referee CANNOT levy a fine. Proposal 8181 is supposed to fix it, but D. Margaux's attempt to resolve it on June 22 failed because it didn't list Telnaior's votes, as G. noted in a CoE a few hours later. On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 01:00, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:The below is CFJ 3753. I assign it to omd. =============================== CFJ 3753 =============================== The investigator of the Finger-pointing done in this message CAN impose a fine on Jason Cobb for the Crime of Oathbreaking for the pledge in evidence. ========================================================================== Caller: Jason Cobb Judge: omd ========================================================================== History: Called by Jason Cobb: 02 Jul 2019 22:32:03 Assigned to omd: [now] ========================================================================== Caller's Evidence: My previous message: I pledge, under penalty of a Class "I'm a string!" Crime, not to make any pledges for the next 24 hours Excerpt from this message [sent after previous message]: I pledge, under penalty of a Class "I'm a string!" Crime, not to make any pledges for the next 24 hours. I fully admit that I am guilty of the above accusation. Excerpt from Rule 2450 ("Pledges"): If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the pledge explicitly states otherwise. Excerpt from Rule 2557 ("Vigilante Justice"): When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the perp with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of the violation, within the following guidelines: - If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime, then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is 2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Caller's Arguments: Assume that I am guilty of the crime (which is a different CFJ); otherwise, this is clearly FALSE. Because I am guilty of a class "I'm a string!" crime, the investigator CAN impose a fine on me. As specified by Rule 2557, the base value of the crime is "I'm a string!". Thus, the investigator of this crime CAN impose a fine not less than 1 (Blot) and not more than 2 * ("I'm a string!") (Blots), whatever that means. I argue that any attempt to assign a numeric value to "I'm a string!" (besides perhaps the number 0) would be arbitrary and without textual backing. If the number 0 were to be assigned, then the investigator would have to impose a fine upon me with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 0 on me, which is the subject of CFJ 3743. My arguments here are effectively the same as CFJ 3743: only one of TRUE, FALSE, and PARADOXICAL is appropriate. TRUE doesn't really work, because there is no numeric value for which the investigator physically can fine me. FALSE doesn't really work because the Rules explicitly state that the Investigator CAN do so. PARADOXICAL is what's left, and thus might be the only one appropriate. ==========================================================================
