====================================================================== CFJ 1068 "Chaos Harlequin has violated Rule 1738." ====================================================================== Judge: elJefe Judgement: FALSE Justices: Morendil (S), Steve (J), Kolja A. (pro-C) Decision: SUSTAIN Eligible: Andre, Calabresi, ChrisM, Chuck, Crito, General Chaos, Kolja A., Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Swann, Vlad Ineligible: Antimatter (not a player), elJefe (Judge) Caller: Barred: On request: Vanyel On hold: Harlequin, Vir ====================================================================== History: Called by Antimatter, 4 Nov 1997 20:28:28 -0800 Assigned to elJefe, 7 Nov 1997 11:32:12 +0100 (MET) elJefe judges FALSE, 8 Nov 1997 00:06:31 +0000 Appealed by Oerjan, 9 Nov 1997 Appealed by elJefe, 9 Nov 1997 (inter alia) Assigned to Morendil, Steve, and Kolja A. as Justices, 12 Nov 1997 07:47:32 +0000 Justice Morendil: sustain, 12 Nov 1997 14:32:06 +0100 Justice Kolja A.: sustain, 14 Nov 1997 14:39:44 +0100 Justice Steve: overturn and judge TRUE, 18 Nov 1997 16:33:09 +1100 ====================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Okay, I'll admit it, I'm too lazy to go through and exhaustively check the ruleset, but I'm pretty sure that Harlequin is guilty of not completed my Probate in a timely fashion. Therefore, in order to attempt to get out of Probate in time to reregister sometime soon, I make the following CFJ (even though I doubt it will help much): ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: I find that when Antimatter deregistered on 10 September he had no currencies of any kind (noone did). Thus he was never placed in Probate by Rule 1601. Unless the Rules authorize the Notary to place people into Probate arbitrarily, or to appoint an EiP for entities not in Probate (which I doubt), I find that the Notary's attempted appointment of Harlequin as EiP had no effect. Thus Harlequin is not an Executor in Probate for Antimatter. I do note that Morendil _did_ possess currencies when he was deregistered, and so Harlequin's appointment as EiP for Morendil (on 27 October) was effective. Though the actions required of the EiP are straightforward, I find that Rule 1738 requires "timely" action rather than "as soon as possible". It would be unreasonable to hold that 8 days of inaction was a violation. Thus Harlequin did not violate Rule 1738 here either. ====================================================================== Decision of the Speaker: A brief review of the facts is in order. Player Antimatter deregistered on Sep. 10 of this year. Player Harlequin was assigned as Antimatter's Executor in Probate on Sep. 11; having not, as far as I can determine, made any particular effort to carry out eir duties as Antimatter's Executor in Probate, Harlequin went On Hold on Nov. 5, shortly after this CFJ was Called on Nov. 4 by Antimatter, who was not at this time a Player. The issue at hand is, therefore, whether the period of time between Sep. 11 and Nov. 4 - roughly, two months - constituted a sufficient amount of time to carry out the duties normally required of an Executor in Probate, in which case it would be fair to Judge the CFJ TRUE. I would normally consider a two-month period amply sufficient to carry out nearly any duty that the Rule currently impose on Players. However, Rule 1575 places quite stringent standards of proof on a Judge deciding on the matter a Rule violation. In this instance, I find that there are several reasons why a period of two months may not be considered "beyond reasonable doubt" sufficient to carry out an Executor in Probate's duties. First and foremost, not one EiP has at this time completed the duties required of em, and some have been assigned to their respective estates for periods of the same order. Second, and more peripheral, no Rule currently provides an adequate method for determining what period of time "in a timely manner" could refer to. Absent such definitions, I would consider one or more instances of Executors in Probate completing their duties in a period of two months or less satisfactory evidence to Judge TRUE, but that is not the case. For these reasons, and while noting that Judge's elJefe rests on flawed premises, I hereby Sustain the original Judgement. Evidence (appended by Speaker) : Antimatter's deregistration message, main headers : Date sent: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:15:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Ross Morgan-Linial rmorgan-@fred.fhcrc.org To: agora-busines-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Subject: BUS: Deregistration Notary Murphy's assignment of Harlequin as Antimatter's EiP, main headers : Date sent: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 21:20:56 -0700 To: agora-busines-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au From: "Ed Murphy" for-@bayside.net Subject: BUS: Executor in Probate Harlequin's On Hold message, main headers : From: linda hall particl-@servtech.com Subject: BUS: On Hold To: agora-busines-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Date sent: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:32:34 -0500 (EST) Rule 1575/0 (Power=1) Standards of Proof A CFJ alleging that a Player has violated a Rule or committed a Crime shall not be judged TRUE unless the evidence is sufficient to be certain of that Judgement beyond reasonable doubt. In all other CFJs, the Judgement shall be consistent with the preponderance of the evidence at hand. ====================================================================== Decision of pro-CotC Kolja A.: The first judge's argument that Harlequin wasn't really Antimatter's EiP is false because it overlooks the last paragraph of 1601. The appeal judgement therefore has to focus on the question whether Harlequin has performed eir duties in a "timely" manner as required by 1738. However, "timely" is not defined precisely anywhere, and is thus open to judicial interpretation. I will have to try and help develope a sensible precedent in this judgement. 1. Which time span should be considered to determine the timeliness of actions? The rules do define "as soon as possible" as a possible timing requirement, of one week. Clearly, "timely" is a more loose requirement than ASAP, so the time allowed must be significantly more than one week. Therefore, as far as Harlequin's EiP-ship of Morendil is concerned, e certainly didn't violate 1738. Other time delays implemented in the rules are from 96 hours (delay between going on hold and off hold again, 1016) up to one month (necessary delay before reregistering after being declared lawless, 1714). The time scale on which the game is proceeding is therefore one of several weeks. The rules usually give players about one week (delivering judgement) to 10 days (voting period) to perform tasks that players usually want to perform, but can decline or ignore if they want. "Timely", as a requirement clearly meant to be more loose than other requirements in the rules, should therefore be interpreted as a reference to a time of several weeks, possibly but not necessarily up to two months. This also makes sense in the issue at hand: while the EiP-ship can also be declined (the EiP can resign from this duty, 1738), one may at least give a newly appointed EiP some weeks to assess the situation of the estate in probate and perform eir duties as required - or find out that this is too much work for em, and resign as a consequence. Of course, this CFJ concerns a time span of about two months (this is how long Harlequin was EiP of Antimatter when this CFJ was made), which is just a borderline case - had it been 3 or 4 weeks, or 3 months, the decision would have been easier. Even if the time scale associated with the "timely" requirement is fixed as "several weeks to two months", of course 1738 cannot be interpreted as a requirement to _complete_ the termination of the estate in probate in this time: there may be longwinded affairs of disputed POs, unclear situations and, possibly, corresponding CFJs involved. However, 1738 may safely be interpreted as the requirement to _begin_ with the termination of the estate within such a time frame. 2. The second question therefore is, did Harlequin make reasonable attempts to perform eir duties according to 1738? This is where, in this judge's opinion and within eir horizon, this CFJ covers new ground in Agora's judicial history: In other judgements all I need to be able to judge is a short description of the situation and the rules. The issues normally are ones of rule interpretation. The present case is more concerned with an assessment of a players behavior, not a rules interpretation. Here, I'd really like to give the accused a chance to defend emself and explain why e didn't do anything visible to start doing eir job as EiP, and whether e did do some things I just missed or never became aware of. However, with Harlequin on hold and the limited time I have available for delivering my judgement, I can not give Harlequin this chance the way I'd really like to. [Side note: Maybe for "criminal cases" like this a different procedure would be appropriate, with enough time and, possibly, more detailed procedures for hearing both sides of the case.] >From the information I have available, and the silence of the accused so far, I would tend to judge true, assuming that Harlequin did not even begin to do eir duties (or resign eir EiP-ship) within the two months after eir assignment. However, 1575 prescribes a very high standard of certainty required to judge a CFJ as the present one TRUE. Because the time frame in question is so close to the borderline of what I would call "timely", and because I feel that the evidence available to me may not be quite complete, I cannot judge this CFJ TRUE. Although for different reasons, I therefore sustain the original judgement of FALSE by elJefe. ====================================================================== Decision of the Justiciar: In the matter of the Appeal of CFJ 1068, I hereby overturn elJefe's Judgement and rule that the Statement is TRUE. I am almost entirely in agreement in with Judge Kolja concerning this case. I have little of substance to add to his excellent remarks on how the requirement that Probate be carried out 'in a timely manner' is to be understood. I would add only that we need not think that 'in a timely manner' needs to be understood as referring to the same length of time in every case. We might think in one case that eight weeks is time enough, but think differently in another due to extenuating circumstances. These remarks are consistent with Kolja's, but I thought it worth making them more explicit. My disagreement with Kolja arises only in the final step of his reasoning, ie the application of R1575. I have been following events reasonably closely, and I am quite satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Harlequin has not undertaken to dispose of Antimatter's assets and debts in accordance with the Probate Code in a timely manner. He is therefore in violation of R1738. I note that the infection of R908 saves Harlequin from having to make a Formal Apology. I also note, in respect of R1439, that the Caller of the CFJ, Antimatter, is not a Player. ======================================================================