==============================  CFJ 1322  ==============================

    The Player, former Player, or Dissolute Blob has at least one Blot.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  Oerjan
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by G.:                           19 Sep 2001 22:47:40 GMT
Assigned to Oerjan:                     20 Sep 2001 00:13:33 GMT
Judged FALSE by Oerjan:                 20 Sep 2001 20:04:44 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

I expect the judgement to be FALSE.

On or about August 26th, the following sentencing Orders were issued by
Judge Elysion:
> I hereby issue a Sentencing Order ordering the Herald to record that
> Blob has incurred 4 Blots as a result of this Judgement.

This is a (perhaps incorrectly-phrased) variant of other Sentencing Orders
in the past, which have stated, in essence, "the Herald is Ordered to
record X Blots."  This particular Sentencing Order clearly required the
Herald to record Blob's Blots.

In this case it was appended after a long judgement text and the Herald
apparently did not see this Order, as the Blots were not recorded in
subsequent Herald's Reports (see Evidence).  Blob was a Zombie (and hence
a Player by recent judgement) and at the time such an Order would have
been proper, valid and applicable to Blob.

The fundamental question is of the timing of the Blot creation.  Which of
the following is true?

 (a) the Order itself created the Blots: hence Blob's Blots exist and are
     unrecorded by the Herald, a simple and correctable recordkeeping
     error (requiring a TRUE judgment here).
 (b) The Blots are not created by the Order, BUT BY THE HERALD'S CARRYING
     OUT THE SENTENCING ORDER.  Since the Herald did not carry out the
     Order, Blob has no Blots (requiring a FALSE judgment).  Further, if e
     is no longer a Player, the Order can't be carried out at this point.

My argument for interpretation (B) is as follows:  Rule 1435/15 (Power=1)
(Definition of Indulgences, Blots and Immaculate) reads quite simply:

>  "A Blot is a stain on a Player's record, recorded by the Herald."

Hence, if this stain is not recorded by the Herald, by definition, it is
not a Blot.  For "a stain on a Player's record" is not a stain on a record
until it exists on a record, and the appropriate record is one "recorded
by the Herald".  Further, the definition reads:

>      Whenever the Rules state that a Player gains or is assessed some
>      number of Blots, and specify a method of reporting that gain or
>      assessment to the Herald, then, as soon as possible after
>      receiving such a notification, the Herald shall record an
>      increase of that amount (or, if the affected Player is Unready,
>      of one half (rounded to the nearest integer) of that amount) in
>      the number of Blots staining the affected Player.

So regardless of whether other rules state "A Player gains X blots", it is
This Act of Legitimate Reporting and Recording that actually creates the
Blot.  Otherwise, why would a sentencing Order be required to be an Order
(to perform the action of recording and thus creating Blots) rather than a
simple recordkeeping statement ("Herald please note that Blob has a
Blot"): Rule 1504/6 (Power=1) (Sentencing Orders) reads:

>      The imposition of penalties for the commission of a Crime shall
>      be by Sentencing Order(s).  Upon a judicial finding that an
>      entity has committed a Crime, the Judge so finding shall execute
>      Sentencing Orders sufficient to implement the penalty required
>      by the Rules for that Crime.

The principle that the Herald is the final "sentencing gatekeeper" of
whether a Blot was properly reported, and thus recordable, and thus
actually a Blot, is an important check against willy-nilly sentencing/
infraction making.  This responsibility is in the Rules, and this
responsibility should not be removed from the Herald.  Since the Herald
is under the obligation to carry out all Proper and Valid Sentencing
Orders ASAP, this timing issue does not (except in rare cases such as this
one) allow the Herald to prevent such Blotting without facing punishment
emself.

Note: While in this case the Herald missed the Order, I do not recommend
any punishment for this obviously easy-to-make error.

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

Sentencing on August 26th:
       http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-official/m1695.html

Herald's Report August 29th:
       http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-official/m1710.html

Herald's Report September 4th:
       http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-official/m1724.html

Herald's Report September 10th:
       http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-official/m1748.html

Herald's Report September 17th:
       http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-official/m1768.html

========================================================================

Judge Oerjan's Arguments:

I understand that Blob is not a Player.  Rule 1435 says:

      A Blot is a stain on a Player's record, recorded by the Herald.

This takes precedence over Rule 1437, which is therefore broken.

========================================================================