> On May 27, 2026, at 7:32 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 5/25/26 07:50, Gregory Hayes via agora-business wrote: >> I call for judgement on the following statement: >> >> "The Referee CAN investigate Galle for the infraction of violating Galle's >> Third Dice Pledge." > > > Gratuitous: > > CFJ 3990 is on-point precedent suggesting TRUE. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor >
In CFJ 3990, G argued that the implied metaphor of a criminal investigation means we should interpret Rule 2531 as allowing an actual investigation process, rather than being a "snapshot in time", but I don't think this interpretation can be made compatible with the plain text of the rule. Whatever else Rule 2531 does, it clearly takes an action (forgiving an infraction) and actions must occur at a particular point in time. Ruled 2531 specifies what situations it will take that action under, and since an action must occur at a particular point in time, its criteria must be evaluated at a particular point in time as well. The best theory I can come up with to justify the ruling in CFJ 3990 is that when Rule 2531 says that "established by a preponderance of the evidence", what it actually means is, "established by a preponderance of the evidence that would be available after an investigation". I suppose this does not directly contradict the plain text of the rule, but it's certainly not the only viable interpretation and I find it worrying to just insert an entire clause in there. - Galle
