The below is CFJ 3767. I assign it to G.
I judge it as follows:
FALSE. Using common sense and direct forward reasoning (R217), this fits
into a "formatting" issue where the meaning is clear, even to a moron in a
hurry[0], and is no more consequential to rules interpretation than whether
* or - is used for bullets in a bullet list.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry
On 8/9/2019 7:58 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
[Please don't kill me for this one. I think this is a valid question.]
I CFJ: "The base value of the Crime of Endorsing Forgery is 2."
Evidence:
{
Excerpt from Rule 2202:
Such ratification or announcement of intent to ratify is the Class-8
Crime of Endorsing Forgery.
Excerpt from Rule 2557:
- 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.
}
Arguments:
{
Although Rule 2202 clearly intends to make the Crime of Endorsing Forgery
have a base value of 8, I don't believe its language actually does so. The
Rules do not describe the Crime of Endorsing Forgery as a "Class N crime"
(where N is some number), they instead describe it as a "Class-8 Crime"
(with the hyphen). I argue that this does not fit the pattern specified by
Rule 2557, so the base value takes on its default of 2.
}
