status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3774
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3774 ===============================
If G. has no more fines levied on em in September, and is Arbitor
during that entire time, e will earn 5 coins as Arbitor due to the
Oct 1 payday.
==========================================================================
Caller: G.
Barred: twg
Judge: Jason Cobb
Judgement: FALSE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by G.: 16 Sep 2019 16:34:32
Assigned to Jason Cobb: 22 Sep 2019 19:53:23
Judged FALSE by Jason Cobb: 23 Sep 2019 13:04:06
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
On 9/15/2019 20:16 GMT, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Having heard no objection to my previous message on the topic, I impose
the Cold Hand of Justice on G. by levying a fine of 2 blots on em for
failing to assign CFJ 3773 in a timely fashion after its initiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caller's Arguments:
In this clause of R2559:
2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
levied on em for eir conduct in that office during that time,
that player earns 5 coins.
the "that" in "during that time" is ambiguous as to what time period is
being referred to. It could be:
1. During the previous month;
2. During 16 or more contiguous days of the previous month.
3. During 16 or more noncontiguous days of the previous month;
An unforgivable fine was levied on G. on Sept 15, so e cannot meet
conditions (1) or (2), but e would meet condition (3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jason Cobb's Arguments:
There are two requirements that R2559 has in order for a person to get a
Payday bonus:
* Held the office for 16 or more days in the previous month.
* No unforgivable fines for eir conduct in that office "during that time".
G. meets the first requirement, as it is undisputed that e has held the
office from the beginning of the month up until now (the 23rd day of the month).
For the second requirement, the caller points out that "during that time"
has an ambiguous antecedent. This must be one of the three concrete time
periods involved in the clause in question: "16 or more days", "the previous
month", and the time that each player held the office in the previous month.
For G. and the position of Arbitor, the latter two time periods will clearly
be the same on 1 Oct given the conditions in the CFJ statement, and an
unforgivable fine was levied on em in that time.
The more interesting time period is "16 or more days". I find that this time
period includes all of the time that the person held the office in the
previous month, so as long as that collectively exceeds 16 days (permitting
non-contiguous time). In G.'s case, given the conditions in the CFJ
statement, this will be the same as the other two time periods on 1 Oct.
I reject the caller's argument that permitting non-contiguous time would
allow G. to gain a Payday bonus - given the structure of the sentence in
question, the time period can influence the outcome of the fine requirement,
but the fine requirement cannot influence which days are counted as part of
the "16 or more days". Put another way, "during that time" cannot refer to
any arbitrary 16 days in the previous month - it only refers to the entire
"16 or more days" from the first requirement. In this case, on 1 Oct, that
will unambiguously be the entire month of September.
G. will not fulfill the second requirement of R2559, so e will not receive a
5 Coin Payday bonus for Arbitor on 1 Oct. FALSE.
==========================================================================
