On 8/21/2022 12:47 AM, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: >> >>>> 8829 Look upon our works ADOPTED >>> 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.
