Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3004
========================= Criminal Case 3004 =========================
Yally violated Rule 1504, a Power-2 Rule, by becoming active
during eir TIME OUT period.
========================================================================
Caller: Walker
Barred: Yally
Judge: Murphy
Judgement: GUILTY/TIME OUT
Appeal: 3004a
Decision: AFFIRM
Appeal: 3004b
Decision: AFFIRM
========================================================================
History:
Called by Walker: 20 Apr 2011 14:08:15 GMT
Defendant Yally informed: 20 Apr 2011 14:08:15 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 20 Apr 2011 22:10:48 GMT
Judged GUILTY/TIME OUT by Murphy: 21 Apr 2011 05:42:08 GMT
Appealed by Yally: 21 Apr 2011 05:50:07 GMT
Appeal 3004a: 21 Apr 2011 05:50:07 GMT
Appealed by Yally: 25 Apr 2011 21:46:08 GMT
Appeal 3004b: 25 Apr 2011 21:46:08 GMT
AFFIRMED on Appeal: 28 Apr 2011 20:28:24 GMT
AFFIRMED on Appeal: 06 May 2011 02:23:18 GMT
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments by Yally:
The statement being called is ambiguous.
========================================================================
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
On the question on culpability:
(a) Yally became active on or about 6 Apr 2011 19:00:28 UTC while
subject to a TIME OUT sentence from CFJ 2985.
(b) This breach occurred about 14 days prior to this case being
initiated, well within the 90-day statute of limitations.
(c) This breach has not been previously judged nor punished.
(d) Yally admitted understanding the nature of this breach.
(e) Yally could have reasonably avoided committing the breach by
remaining inactive until the time limit expired. Rule 1504's
"for the number of days specified" is messy and should be
legislatively improved, but is nevertheless clearly intended to
be interpreted as "within the specified number of days after the
sentence most recently went into effect".
GUILTY.
On the question of sentencing:
By eir own admission, Yally deliberately broke the rules multiple times
to find out how long e could avoid effective punishment, creating more
work for others in the process. On the other hand, e demonstrated a
loophole by example, and tradition is to reward scammers to some extent
for their ingenuity. TIME OUT, 14 days.
========================================================================
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3004b
============================ Appeal 3004b ============================
Panelist: G.
Decision: AFFIRM
Panelist: omd
Decision: AFFIRM
Panelist: ais523
Decision: AFFIRM
========================================================================
History:
Appeal initiated: 25 Apr 2011 21:46:08 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist): 29 Apr 2011 02:23:18 GMT
Assigned to omd (panelist): 29 Apr 2011 02:23:18 GMT
Assigned to ais523 (panelist): 29 Apr 2011 02:23:18 GMT
omd moves to AFFIRM: 29 Apr 2011 03:48:31 GMT
G. moves to AFFIRM: 29 Apr 2011 16:00:01 GMT
ais523 moves to AFFIRM: 06 May 2011 02:23:18 GMT
Final decision (AFFIRM): 06 May 2011 02:23:18 GMT
========================================================================
Appellant Yally's Arguments:
I appeal this case's question on culpability.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments by Roujo:
Being sentenced to 2 simultaneous TIME OUTs does not seem
to be a worse sentence than just one - they overlap completely, and as
such do not punish you any more than a single one of them. They
originate from the same case, anyway: appealing one automatically
appeals the other, so there isn't even a higher difficulty in
appealing the two sentences. I don't see how this violates your R101
right.
========================================================================
Panelist G.'s Arguments:
Since "two simultaneous time-outs" is still an identical net
punishment, this argument has no bearing. Without extending this
to be a precedent on R101 in cases where the net punishment would
actually be additive, I opine AFFIRM.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Evidence by Murphy:
Timing of relative events (all UTC):
4 Apr 15:58:55 2982 TIME OUT 7 begins, Yally becomes inactive
4 Apr 16:54:36 2982 appealed, Yally becomes active
4 Apr 22:35:56 2982 affirmed, Yally becomes inactive
4 Apr 23:23:20 Yally becomes active
6 Apr 15:40:47 2985 TIME OUT 14 begins, Yally becomes inactive
6 Apr 19:00:28 Yally becomes active
11 Apr 22:35:56 2982 time limit ends
20 Apr 05:01:16 Proposal 7002 changes TIME OUTs from parallel to
serial; Proposal 7012 changes reactivation from
SHALL NOT to CANNOT
20 Apr 15:40:47 2985 time limit ends
21 Apr 05:42:08 3004 TIME OUT 14 begins, Yally becomes inactive
and eir stasis timer becomes 14 days and it
starts decreasing
21 Apr 05:50:07 3004 appealed, Yally becomes active and eir
stasis timer becomes zero
The only simultaneous TIME OUTs are from 2982 and 2985, which
doesn't violate R101 because they were for different violations.
========================================================================
Panelist ais523's Arguments:
[no opinion given]
========================================================================
