Format for e-mail
| CFJ: | 2684 |
| Interest Index: | 1 |
| Statement: | BobTHJ violated Rule 2143, a Power 1 Rule, by publishing an Anarchist's report on the 10th of September, 2009 claiming that C-walker does not own any cards from the Deck of Change. |
| Caller: | Walker |
| Barred: | BobTHJ |
| |
| Judge: | ə |
| Judgement: | GUILTY/APOLOGY |
| |
| Currently Eligible: | (none) |
History:
| Called by Walker | 13 Sep 2009 19:34:36 GMT |
| Defendant BobTHJ informed | 13 Sep 2009 19:34:36 GMT |
| Assigned to ə | 15 Sep 2009 07:44:34 GMT |
| Judged GUILTY/APOLOGY by ə | 19 Sep 2009 19:26:03 GMT |
Caller's Arguments: | | (13 Sep 2009 19:34:36 GMT) |
For this case to be judged GUILTY, the following must be true:
(a) the Accused breached the specified rule via the specified
act;
(b) the breach occurred within 90 days prior to the case being
initiated;
(c) judgement has not already been reached in another criminal
case, or punishment already applied through another
uncontested notice of violation, with the same Accused, the
same rule, and substantially the same alleged act;
(d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the
alleged act did not violate the specified rule;
(e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the
breach without committing a different breach of equal or
greater severity.
(a) is true:
It is clear that BobTHJ violated R2143. The relevant paragraph reads:
While performing weekly or monthly duties or publishing weekly
or monthly reports, officers SHALL NOT publish information that
is inaccurate or misleading.
Eir Anarchist report claims that I have no Change cards, when it is
clear that I most likely do. Additionally, my Card holdings are
currently in dispute (subject to a CFJ) and contrary to common
practice, BobTHJ's report makes no mention of this. (Claiming I had no
cards was inaccurate, and making no comment about the ambiguity was
misleading. Both violate the quoted paragraph from R2143.)
(b) is true.
(c) is true; there has been no other NoV relating to this report.
(d) is true. BobTHJ is an officer for multiple offices and must know
about the paragraph in the rule e violated, and e could not have
reasonably believed that claiming I had no cards and making no comment
in eir report about the ambiguity over my card holdings did not
violate the rule.
(e) is true.
Therefore I recommend a judgement of GUILTY.
Gratuitous Arguments by BobTHJ: | | (14 Sep 2009 14:47:16 GMT) |
My report does clearly state (in the history section) that
C-Walker's current holdings are in dispute. I recommend NOT GUILTY.
Gratuitous Arguments by BobTHJ: | | (17 Sep 2009 14:19:47 GMT) |
[regarding CFJ 2677]
Based on this judgment I deny all CoEs against the most recently
published Insulator's Justice report and Anarchist's Change report.
Both reports were completely accurate. Furthermore I argue for NOT
GUILTY in related criminal CFJs brought against me.
Gratuitous Arguments by Walker: | | (17 Sep 2009 19:16:13 GMT) |
I repeat my argument for GUILTY in both of these cases. While BobTHJ's
reports have indirectly been found to be correct, they were still
misleading in that they made no reference to the ambiguity surrounding
my card ownership.
Judge ə's Arguments: | | (19 Sep 2009 19:26:03 GMT) |
There are five criteria for determining whether or not the Accused is
GUILTY, as set out in R1504. I will address them in order.
a) The question here is whether the Accused's report is to be considered
inaccurate or misleading. A judge has determined in a separate case that
the report was not to be considered inaccurate, therefore the question
is whether or not it was misleading, even though it was 100% factually
accurate. The caller submits that because eir holdings were ambiguous at
the time, the report ought to be considered misleading.
First, it must be noted that a statement or report does not need to be
factually incorrect to be misleading, due to the implications it may
have, or the presentation of the information. The Accused's report
specified that c-walker had no holdings without any footnote or marker
of any kind indicating that eir holdings were in dispute at the time of
the report.
One definition of misleading (courtesy of Wiktionary) is "Deceptive or
tending to mislead or create a false impression". It is my belief that
this definition is appropriate, especially given the need to consider
the good of the game. It is completely inappropriate to allow
recordkeepors to publish information which may or may not be factually
correct without a notice, as the result is that it may self-ratify an
incorrect game state. The fact that it was later decided to be correct
should not be a factor in determining whether a report was misleading.
Therefore I find this criterion to be satisfied.
b) This is trivially satisfied.
c) This is satisfied.
d) The Accused indicated eir intent to publish an entry in the history
section of eir report explaining that the exact outcome of the caller's
audit was unknown. It is not my place to decide whether or not such a
note would be sufficient to prevent the report from being misleading (I
believe it would not be, because most players do not pay attention to
the history section except when attempting to determine past history).
However, the fact that the Accused intended to place it in eir report
indicates e was aware of the situation; given this and given the
ambiguity surrounding the caller's holdings at the time of the report, I
do not find that the Accused could reasonably have believed publishing a
report could not have violated R1504, and I find this criterion to be
satisfied.
e) This criterion is satisifed; the Accused could have legally published
a non-misleading report.
Gratuitous Arguments by ə: | | (19 Sep 2009 19:26:19 GMT) |
[I] assign a judgment of APOLOGY to
this case, with {monochromated, misguided, dovekie, velocimeter,
surbahar, greybeards, overzealous, shiny, metal, daffodil} as the
prescribed words.
Gratuitous Arguments by BobTHJ: | | (21 Sep 2009 16:42:08 GMT) |
Per the pledge "FINE mark 9238562364", I formally request the Servant
write an apology for this case.
Gratuitous Arguments by BobTHJ: | | (22 Oct 2009 17:28:45 GMT) |
I hereby humbly apologize for three acts:
1. publishing a report with misleading information that led to CFJ 2684.
2. failing to apologize in a timely fashion when ordered to by the
judge in this case.
3. cheating in writing this apology.
Furthermore, I wish to add the following words/comments to my apology:
monochromated, misguided, dovekie, velocimeter,
surbahar, greybeards, overzealous, shiny, metal, daffodil
And then, to ensure I meet the 200 word minimum, I wish to include the
following (which I would have written by hand on a chalkboard, but
copy/paste was easier):
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
I will not issue reports containing misleading information.
This was my error. I feel shame and remorse at this error. I desire to
improve. This constitutes my apology for CFJ 2684.
