Indictment Decision 00000000000001-A
Resolved: That R. Lee be convicted (found guilty) for breaching eir
pledge, "Honor in Scammery".
Indictment Decision 00000000000001-B
Resolved: That the indictment fine of 1 blot, as issued by the Referee,
be accepted.
I hereby initiate a referendum on each of the above Decisions. Each
decision has a voting method of AI-majority, with AI=1.5. The vote
collector is the Arbitor, the quorum is 6, valid options are FOR and
AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes).
As a guide, ordered pairs of votes for (A,B) above have the following meaning:
(FOR, FOR): Guilty, and 1 blot is an appropriate penalty.
(FOR, AGAINST): Guilty, but issue a different penalty (higher or lower).
(AGAINST, FOR): Not Guilty, but if found guilty by the total votes, 1 blot
is appropriate.
(AGAINST, AGAINST): Not Guilty, but if found guilty by total votes, issue
a different penalty (higher or lower).
In the ~10 days since the indictment was issued, the defendant has not
provided a defense. The following contains the details of the indictment:
On 7/22/2020 10:02 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
wrote:
> On 7/22/20 12:11 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
>>
>> On 7/22/2020 8:26 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> On 7/22/20 2:37 AM, N. S. via agora-business wrote:
>>>>> "Honor in scammery" created by R. Lee
>>>>
>>>> I point my finger at myself for violating this pledge
>>> Because breach of this fine is a class 1000 crime, an Indictment will
>>> be
>>> needed here. G., do you have a preference for how many blots to impose
>>> as the aggrieved party?
>>>
>>
>> I was a full conspirator in the scam underlying this, the ability to
>> fulfill the pledge depended on the scam working, and e made a full
>> attempt
>> to fulfill the conditions (e published a message that would have kept
>> the
>> pledge, during the time we thought the scam had worked). The fact that
>> e
>> didn't a put a "this is void if the scam fails" (which was a common-
>> sense
>> understanding between us) isn't injurious at all, from my personal POV.
>>
>> Any punishment above a trivial level (I dunno, 1 or 2) would be
>> leveraging
>> this pledge to punish em for the scam attempt overall IMO; and nch and
>> I
>> were equal partners in the conspiracy.
>>
>> -G.
>>
>
> Given that G. is in agreement with a minimal fine, I issue an Indictment
> finding R. Lee guilty of breaching eir pledge, "Honor in Scammery",
> specifying a fine of 1 blot. I recommend that e be found guilty and the
> Indictment imposed only because e clearly breached the pledge and e
> should have been more careful in drafting it.
