Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2674 ============== Criminal Case 2674 (Interest Index = 3) =============== BobTHJ violated Rule 2143, committing the Class-N Crime of Tardiness (with N=1) by failing to publish a Herald's report in the week prior to the one in which this message is published. ======================================================================== Caller: coppro Barred: BobTHJ Judge: woggle Judgement: GUILTY/SILENCE Appeal: 2674a Decision: REMAND Appeal: 2674b Decision: REMAND Judge: woggle Judgement: GUILTY Judge: ais523 Judgement: GUILTY/SILENCE ======================================================================== History: Called by coppro: 31 Aug 2009 01:29:05 GMT Defendant BobTHJ informed: 31 Aug 2009 01:29:05 GMT Assigned to woggle: 05 Sep 2009 15:09:48 GMT Judged GUILTY/SILENCE by woggle: 05 Sep 2009 22:43:37 GMT Appealed by BobTHJ: 09 Sep 2009 16:55:27 GMT Appeal 2674a: 09 Sep 2009 16:55:27 GMT Appealed by BobTHJ: 09 Sep 2009 17:04:15 GMT Appeal 2674b: 09 Sep 2009 17:04:15 GMT REMANDED on Appeal: 13 Oct 2009 00:17:00 GMT Remanded to woggle: 13 Oct 2009 00:17:00 GMT REMANDED on Appeal: 13 Oct 2009 00:17:00 GMT Judged GUILTY by woggle: 13 Oct 2009 02:33:58 GMT woggle recused: 13 Oct 2009 02:33:58 GMT Remanded to ais523: 14 Oct 2009 17:57:58 GMT Judged GUILTY/SILENCE by ais523: 14 Oct 2009 18:08:18 GMT ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by BobTHJ: I argue for NOT GUILTY. I only became Herald on Saturday and should be allowed a full 7 days to fulfill any outstanding obligations on the office. ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: I do not know of any judicial precedent in this matter. There has been at least one proposal to explicitly absolve new officers of their duties for a short period of time so that they may be accustomed to the office. Looking at the conditions for GUILTY set out in Rule 1504, the criterion could be evaluated as follows for this case: (a) Whether BobTHJ violated this rule is in question. The requirement is that the holder of the office perform it at least once in a week. In the case where the officer changes in the week, is it the old officer's responsibility? the new officer's? A solid judicial decision in this regard is requested as to the concrete liability of a given officer. I do not know which is appropriate - either way, a person who held an office for 29 days of a month could be found to be not responsible for failing to perform the monthly duties of an office. One alternative is to say that the person who holds the office for the majority of the period is responsible, but this seems bad because the exact moment of election resolution is not necessarily up to the officer, who may find eir ability to fulfill eir obligation revoked 10 minutes before they fulfill it. Alternatively, neither could be responsible, but this seems like a cop-out. (b) If (a) is found to be fulfilled, (b) is certainly fulfilled as the duty was only last week (c) Trivially fulfilled (d) An IADoP's report was published specifying that the report was due, and that the Accused was Herald. The Accused fulfilled eir other official duties with less than half an hour remaining in the week; there is no reason e should have been unaware that the report was due. E may be able to claim this clause as defense under belief that e was not responsible until a week had passed, however, I do not believe that the Accused genuinely believed eir actions were legal. (e) I see no reason this would not be fulfilled. ======================================================================== Judge woggle's Arguments: I judge GUILTY / SILENCE. It is our custom that obligations follow the office which is obliged to perform them. Such movement of obligations is required for smooth transitions between officeholders and for deputisation is enshrined in R2160(a)'s practice of eliminating deputized obligations. While one could argue that the obligations are incurred upon the holder of the office at which the time period in which they are to be performed starts, such an interpretation would lead to the bad for the game conclusion that former officeholders are obliged to do IMPOSSIBLE things while the new officeholder cannot perform some of those old obligations except through deputisation. (Alternately, the obligations might be imposed on no one, which would be similarly troubling.) (If BobTHJ had not received a benefit of holding the Herald's office during the end of the week (a card draw on 31 August) or the IADoP had resolved the election exceptionally close to Monday 00:00 UTC, I would have assigned a sentence of DISCHARGE.) ======================================================================== Gratuitous Evidence by BobTHJ: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:49, comex wrote: > You keep making that claim. I personally think that this custom doesn't > apply when the officer has "most of" a week (+ the election period) to > prepare a report, but neither of us has evidence. If you give some, I think > it would help your case. > As evidence, I submit that I can not recall in my 2+ years of history playing Agora where a newly appointed officer is dinged for lateness within 7 days of taking office. Though perhaps the burden of proof lies with the appeals panel in finding a history of such penalties/cases? ======================================================================== Judge woggle's Arguments: On culpability, I rejudge GUILTY. I don't think any serious challenge has been made in the arguments that would show that a custom of extending officer time limits has existed, and given that the evidence seems to merely be that BobTHJ couldn't recall any prosecutions for it doesn't really rise to 'reasonably believing that the alleged act did not violate the rule'. Concerning sentencing, I recuse myself from this case. ======================================================================== Judge ais523's Arguments: I judge the question on sentencing in CFJ 2674 SILENCE (1 Rest). I see no reason to give anything but the standard punishment here; and as woggle has judged that BobTHJ should have known he was breaking the rule (this is a necessary implication of a GUILTY verdict), and BobTHJ was rewarded despite eir lack of reporting, it makes sense to apply a minimal punishment, although not much more than that. ========================================================================