I award G. the Standard Case Fee for timely judgement of this case. Detail: http://cotc.psychose.ca/viewcase.php?cfj=3318
========================= Criminal Case 3318 ========================= Murphy violated Rule 2143 by failing to report on the PVN and on Virtue last week. ======================================================================== Caller: scshunt Barred: Murphy Judge: Wes Judgement: NOT GUILTY Appeal: 3318a Decision: REMAND Judge: G. Judgement: GUILTY/DISCHARGE ======================================================================== History: Called by scshunt: 06 May 2013 14:18:37 GMT Defendant Murphy informed: 06 May 2013 14:18:37 GMT Assigned to Machiavelli: 12 May 2013 22:02:34 GMT Machiavelli recused: 13 May 2013 22:38:10 GMT Assigned to Wes: 27 May 2013 22:27:57 GMT Judged NOT GUILTY by Wes: 29 May 2013 18:09:34 GMT Appealed by scshunt: 29 May 2013 18:12:44 GMT Appealed by omd: 29 May 2013 19:18:15 GMT Appealed by Walker: 29 May 2013 20:51:43 GMT Appeal 3318a: 29 May 2013 20:51:43 GMT REMANDED on Appeal: 09 Jun 2013 18:02:47 GMT Remanded to Wes: 09 Jun 2013 18:02:47 GMT Wes recused: 22 Jun 2013 18:59:07 GMT Assigned to G.: 22 Jun 2013 18:59:07 GMT Judged GUILTY/DISCHARGE by G.: 23 Jun 2013 17:46:07 GMT ======================================================================== Defendant Murphy's Arguments: 1) To my knowledge, PVN is not required to be reported. 2) To my knowledge, each player's Virtue is at its default value and is thus not required to be reported. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt: Rule 2356: The Police Vigilance Number (PVN) is an integer tracked by the CotC. Virtue is a person switch tracked by the CotC, with values Virtuous (default) and Unvirtuous. Rule 2379: If the rules define a report as including a list, then while that list is empty, that report includes the fact that it is empty. Ignorance of the rules is not a defence. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by Wes: This CFJ involves two allegations with subtle but important differences between them, and so we shall address each allegation separately. Rule 2356 defines the Police Vigilance Number (PVN) as "an integer tracked by the CotC." This clearly requires the CotC to be aware of the current value of the PVN, but we can find no Rules reference requiring that this value be reported in any way. An argument could be made that "track" is somehow synonymous with a requirement to include the information in a report. We contest this claim, noting that Rule 2162 addresses the reporting of Switch values which are tracked by an Office, while no Rule addresses the reporting of any values other than Switches which are tracked by an Office. Similarly, Patent Titles are tracked by the Herald without being a Switch, and Rule 649 explicitly defines the associated reporting requirements. This would appear to reinforce our conclusion that a requirement to track an entity must also include an explicit requirement to report on said entity, else such a requirement does not exist. Rule 2356 further defines Virtue as "a person switch tracked by the CotC, with values Virtuous (default) and Unvirtuous." As this is a Switch, Rule 2162 adds an associated reporting requirement: "That officer's report includes the value of each instance of that switch whose value is not its default value." Thus, the CotC is indeed required to report any Virtue Switches which are not Virtuous. Currently, there are no such Switches, and so there is no requirement to report any Virtue Switch values. The caller's argument is that these two Rules are equivalent to a requirement to publish a list, as defined in Rule 2379, which states "If the rules define a report as including a list, then while that list is empty, that report includes the fact that it is empty." We will note, however, that Rule 2139 ("a list of all Players"), Rule 2166 ("a list of all instances of that class and their owners"), Rule 2388 ("The Dictionary is a list of common terms and shorthands"), Rule 2350 ("a list of co-authors"), Rule 1607 ("a list of all proposals in the Proposal Pool"), and Rule 649 ("a list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears") all explicitly define a series of values as a "list," while no Rule does the same for the value of this, or any, Switch. As such, we find that the Rules do not compel the CotC to include the PVN in eir report, nor do the Rules compel any reporting around Virtue Switch values until and unless one or more Virtue Switches have a non-default value. We would, however, encourage the CotC to include this data in eir report as a convenience to other Players. ======================================================================== Judge Wes's Arguments: Our verdict is therefore NOT GUILTY. ======================================================================== Judge G.'s Arguments: First, PVN and Virtue reporting are two separate things. Along the lines of CFJ 3336 allowing separate acts to be bundled into a single criminal trial, I'll treat these as severable (i.e., not treat "PVN and Virtue reporting" as a single logical, which is not a defined duty). PVN And Virtue are different. PVN is not a switch and is not a defined part of any report. As I stated as an Appeals Justice, the reasonable standard for tracking is that the tracker be able to demonstrate within a reasonable time after a request that e is tracking it (a report is a very handy way to do this, but not required). As this is generally new territory (first judicial decision on tracking things that aren't in reports), there's no reason Murphy should be expected to know this, so for PVN e would be not guilty due to R1504(d). Virtue is a switch, however, and thus part of a report. Rule 2379 makes it clear that the empty list must be reported, and Murphy, as an officer, should have been aware of this. Therefore I find no defense that would mitigate GUILTY. In terms of punishment, there are a couple mitigating factors: (1) It is easy to miss without a reminder, and (2) Murphy has been specifically removed from holding postulated office for other lapses in service. Therefore, I find e has seen sufficient punishment for recent lapses overall. Final decision: GUILTY/DISCHARGE. ========================================================================