On 8/21/2022 12:47 AM, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
>>
8829 Look upon our worksADOPTED
>>> For each of 4st, CreateSource, cuddlybanana, duck, G., Jason, juan,
>> Murphy, R. Lee, secretsnail, Trigon, and Vitor Gonçalves, I note that e is
>> not dancing a powerful dance, in violation of rule 2029.
>>>
>>> For each infraction noted above, I intend, with consent, to forgive it.
>> (Note for supporters: you can’t support an intent to forgive yourself.)
>>>
>>> I CFJ: the incidents noted above are infractions.
>>>
>>> Arguments: see CFJ 1881.
>>>
>>> Gaelan
>>
>>
>> The above is CFJ 3989.
>>
>> I assign CFJ 3989 to 4st.
>>
>
> Contrary to prior CFJ's 2585 and 1534, I disagree that Marvies and Dancing
> a Powerful Dance retain their meaning that historically meant something in
> the previous rulesets, and I agree with CFJ 1881. However, the action of
> dancing, the noun of dance, and the adjective of powerful are all undefined
> within the ruleset, and therefore, could be anything.
>
> Therefore, keeping in line with CFJ 1881, I judge CFJ 3989 to be DISMISS,
> as there isn't, and could never be at this time, sufficient evidence to
> determine whether there were incidents, and whether they were infractions.
>
Hm. You dismiss this under "standards of evidence", but just noticed that
the new Justice rule puts the preponderance of evidence standard on the
*forgiveness*, not the finding of fact (The old blot rule had a weird way
of reading backwards from levying a fine that meant a result of
SHENANIGANS either way - that's different in this implementation because
the infraction and forgiveness are separate stages).
> An infraction is automatically forgiven if:
>
> (1) the alleged infracter can't be established by a
> preponderance of the evidence to have committed the
> infraction
Does this mean that infractions happen even if there's no or little
evidence for them and then they're forgiven? I think DISMISS is still
probably appropriate because as per R591 "insufficient information exists
to make a judgement with reasonable effort", but this is kind of weird
that the standards of evidence have been shifted to the sentencing/
forgiveness phase?
An additional aspect to this case is that the Rules violation could be
read as collective punishment - that the marvies collectively need to
dance - and collective punishment has been found to fail in the past:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3730
-G.
