From - Sat Jun 24 13:11:22 2000 Status: R Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by mx9.mindspring.com (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sl3fn3.3nd.37kbi17 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 03:23:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA19912 for agora-official-list; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:04:58 GMT Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA19909 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:04:56 GMT From: magika@aracnet.com Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id RAA75627 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:15:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail3.aracnet.com(216.99.193.38) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma075625; Thu, 22 Jun 00 17:14:49 +1000 Received: from shell1.aracnet.com (shell1.aracnet.com [216.99.193.21]) by mail3.aracnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02074 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:13:55 -0700 Received: by shell1.aracnet.com (8.9.3) id AAA05214; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:13:50 -0700 Message-Id: <200006220713.AAA05214@shell1.aracnet.com> Subject: OFF: CFJ 1230 Judged TRUE To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-off) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:13:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: sl3fn3.3nd.37kbi17 ============================== CFJ 1230 ============================== Taral has not committed any acts of Promotor Misrepresentation. ======================================================================== Called by: Taral Judge: harvel Judgement: TRUE Judge selection: Eligible: harvel, lee, Peekee, Wes Not eligible: Caller: Taral Barred: - Had eir turn: Chuck, Elysion, Kelly, Murphy, Palnatoke, Sherlock, Steve, t Already served: - Defaulted: - Previously Defaulted: Harlequin, Sherlock By request: Blob, Crito, Michael On Hold: Palnatoke Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Novalis, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Taral: 18 Jun 2000 07:38:25 -0500 Assigned to harvel: 18 Jun 2000 16:46:49 -0700 Judged TRUE by harvel: 21 Jun 2000 20:07:48 EDT Judgement Distributed: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: ======================================================================== Judge's Arguments: Although the Statement is not explicitly an accusation that Taral has committed a Crime, Promotor Misrepresentation is defined by Rule 1770 as a Crime. Therefore, a Judgement of FALSE on the Statement is equivalent to a Judgement of TRUE on the Statement, "Taral has committed the Crime of Promotor Misrepresentation". Therefore, this Statement falls under the standards of proof given in Rule 1575. That is, the Statement must not be Judged FALSE (finding that Taral committed a Crime) unless the evidence is sufficient to be certain of that Judgement beyond reasonable doubt. I find that evidence from the two Rules mentioned above is sufficient to constitute reasonable doubt about Taral's guilt. According to Rule 1770, Promotor Misrepresentation is defined as "[k]nowingly and willfully distributing a Proposal (or text purporting to be a Proposal) not in the Current Batch". This definition is ambiguous. Two readings are: (a) "Promotor Misrepresentation is knowingly and willfully distributing a non-Current-Batch Proposal, whether one knows the Proposal is in the Current Batch or not"; and (b) "Promotor Misrepresentation is willfully distributing a Proposal one knows not to be in the Current Batch". If the correct reading is (b), then the Statement is TRUE, because Taral has indicated that at the time he distributed Proposals 4017-4019, he did not believe he was distributing Proposals not in the Current Batch. If, however, the correct reading is (a), then a Judgement of FALSE cannot yet be ruled out. However, Rule 1575 indicates that "it is a defense to any accusation of a Crime that the Player reasonably believed that eir actions were not a Crime at the time e performed them". As observed above, Taral did not believe eir actions were a Crime at the time e performed them. Thus the Judgement depends on whether Taral's belief was reasonable. This is equivalent to asking whether Taral's belief that eir message of 5 June 2000 "encapsulated" a message of 1 June 2000 distributed Proposals during the week of 29 May 2000. In CFJ 1229, the Judge ruled that Taral did not distribute Proposals during that week; however, some Players have called for its Appeal. This seems to indicate that, while it may turn out that CFJ 1229, if actually sent to an Appeals Board, is sustained, it was still reasonable to believe, before the Appeal, either that the message did or that it did not distribute Proposals during the week of 29 May 2000. Thus, even if the correct reading above is (a), Taral's reasonable belief that the actions e was performing did not constitute a Crime is sufficient defense by Rule 1575, and therefore a Judgement of TRUE is required. I therefore enter a Judgement of TRUE. ======================================================================== Judge's Evidence: (A) Rule 1575/4 (B) Rule 1770/11 -- A --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1575/4 (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. Furthermore, it is a defense to any accusation of a Crime that the Player reasonably believed that eir actions were not a Crime at the time e performed them, or that e reasonably did not know that e was required to perform an action, when such nonperformance is defined as a Crime. A Player shall not be convicted of a Crime if this defense applies. -- B --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1770/11 (Power=1) Distributing Proposals The Current Batch for a given Week is a subset of the Proposal Queue. Its contents shall be calculated at the beginning of that Week. It shall contain every Disinterested Proposal then in the Proposal Queue, as well as: * all Interested Proposals in the Proposal Queue with Priority greater than zero, if their number is not greater than the Batch Size; or * a set of Interested Proposals in the Proposal Queue with the highest positive Priority the cardinality of which is equal to the Batch Size. Ties for highest Priority shall be broken in favor of those Proposals which have been in the Queue the longest. During a Week, the Promotor must distribute all and only Proposals in that Week's Current Batch. Failure to Distribute all Proposals in that Current Batch during that Week is the Class 0.5 Infraction of Promotor Tardiness. All Players are authorized to detect and report this Infraction. Knowingly and willfully distributing a Proposal (or text purporting to be a Proposal) not in the Current Batch is the Class 2 Crime of Promotor Misrepresentation. All Players are authorized to detect and report this Crime. A Player may make a Claim of Error stating that a distributed Proposal was not in the Current Batch at the time it was distributed. If this is admitted, then: * the Voting Period for that Proposal shall immediately end; * all Votes cast on that Proposal shall be cancelled; and * the Promotor shall add the Proposal to the Proposal Queue. Once a Proposal is distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Queue. The Promotor shall distribute each proposal in the batch to the Public Forum, accompanied by its number, the identity of its Proposing Entity, and an indication of whether the Proposal is Ordinary or Democratic. The failure of the Promotor to distribute any of the above accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive the distribution of the Proposal of any legal effect. A Proposal is only considered to be legally distributed if it is explicitly marked as such. The Promotor is permitted to publish the text of undistributed Proposals without necessarily distributing them. Immediately after all Proposals in the Current Batch have been distributed the Promotor shall reduce the Priority of all Proposals remaining in the Queue to half of their previous values, rounding fractions down. ========================================================================