==============================  CFJ 1535  ==============================

    Sherlock did not gain 15 Blots on June 15th, 2004.

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

Caller:                                 Sherlock

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Sherlock:                     10 Mar 2005 21:59:06 GMT
Assigned to root:                       13 Mar 2005 02:35:50 GMT
Judged FALSE by root:                   18 Mar 2005 06:48:43 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

I did not render a judgement in CFJ1505/1506/1507/1508/1509, a linked
series of CFJ's.  Due to this failure to return a judgement, Clerk of the
Courts Murphy recused me from the give linked cases.  The announcements of
my recusals were contained in:

  http://www.agoranomic.org/pipermail/agora-official/2004-June/001496.html
  http://www.agoranomic.org/pipermail/agora-official/2004-June/001497.html
  http://www.agoranomic.org/pipermail/agora-official/2004-June/001498.html
  http://www.agoranomic.org/pipermail/agora-official/2004-June/001499.html
  http://www.agoranomic.org/pipermail/agora-official/2004-June/001500.html

Clerk of the Courts Murphy then penalized me 15 Blots in this e-mail, 3
for each linked CFJ's Failure to Judge:

  http://www.agoranomic.org/pipermail/agora-business/2004-June/002976.html

I accepted this at the time.  Now that I'm looking at it again, I'm not so
sure it was a correct reading of the rules.  Per the then current ruleset:

  http://www.agoranomic.org/pipermail/agora-official/2004-June/001492.html


  Rule 1816/2 (Power=3)
  No Double Jeopardy for Crimes

      No Player may be penalized more than once for any single action
      or inaction.

      If a non-dismissed CFJ alleges that a Player has committed a
      Crime through a given action or inaction, then any further CFJ
      alleging that the same Player has committed the same Crime
      through the same action or inaction lacks standing and shall be
      dismissed.

I argue that my failure to return a response on these linked CFJ's was one
inaction, not five different ones.  Again, from the ruleset:

  Rule 2024/0 (Power=1)
  Linked Statements

      Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement submitted in a
      single message and clearly labelled as Linked CFJs.

      The Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of Linked
      CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ.  The Judge must be eligible
      to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned
      as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs.

      The Judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement of
      each of those CFJs in a single message.

     [...]

Note that this rule requires that the reply to all Linked CFJ's be sent in
one message.  I would like to suggest that my failure to return judgement
only consisted of one inaction: a failure to send ONE such message.  This
rule does not require five messages to be sent -- if it did, I would have
committed five infractions by failing to do so.  But as written, there is
only one "inaction" because I was only required to do one thing -- send a
single message.

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

Judge root's Arguments:

Sherlock has petitioned me to consider the best interests of the game in
judging this CFJ.  On the surface of it, I agree with em; there is no
need to penalize so harshly a failure to judge a full set of linked
CFJs, which are conceptually very much like a single multi-part CFJ.  I
also do not desire to play any role in enforcing Sherlock's undeserved
blottage.

Unfortunately, I am compelled to find that the Rules do not support
Sherlock's arguments, which rest on the assertion that judging a set of
linked CFJs constitutes a single action, and that failure to judge a
set of linked CFJs is therefore a single inaction.  This assertion is
founded entirely upon the single sentence from Rule 2024:  "The Judge of
a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement of each of those CFJs in
a single message."

The most direct counter-argument is to dispel the notion that a single
message implies a single action, and there is a good deal of support
that this is not the case.  Rule 1527 discusses the timing of multiple
actions contained within a single message.  It does not explicitly
dictate that a single message may contain multiple actions, but it does
strongly suggest it.  Adding to this, there is an extraordinary amount
of game precedent to support this view.  It is not uncommon for a player
to submit proposals and CFJs, vote multiple times, or draw multiple
cards within the same message.  All of these are widely held to be
separate actions.  Thus, I find that the quoted sentence from R2024
provides only weak evidence in support of the caller's assertion.

Furthermore, it is not clear how strongly the requirement of R2024 to
submit each linked Judgement in a single message is enforced.  The
question of whether any particular disallowed action would be invalid if
performed or valid but criminal is a matter of long debate.  However,
the use of the word "shall" -- as opposed to, say, "must" -- seems to me
a clear indication that this instance is an example of the latter.
Thus, if a Judge were to violate this requirement and submit eir
linked judgements in separate messages, I find that R2024 would not
prevent those judgements from being valid.  But in such a situation, the
whole basis of the caller's assertion is torn asunder.  Moreover, after
examining the CFJ archives, I find that this situation has in fact
occurred at least once: the linked CFJs 1483-1487 were judged in
separate messages.  From a pragmatic viewpoint, I find that the best
interests of the game entail allowing these judgements to stand.

On the basis of these two arguments, I find that the caller's assertion
to the effect that judging a set of linked CFJs constitutes a single
action does not hold water.  Finally, continuing with Rule 2024, I note
the first two paragraphs:

       Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement submitted in a
       single message and clearly labelled as Linked CFJs.

       The Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of Linked
       CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ.  The Judge must be eligible
       to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned
       as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs.

In particular, I note the key phrases "multiple Calls for Judgement",
"*as if* they were a single CFJ", and "simultaneously assigned as Judge
of each".  Each sentence in these two paragraphs, particularly the first
one, makes it very clear that Rule 2024 itself considers, even defines,
Linked CFJs to be distinct entities, and not merely different facets of
the same entity.  This in turn suggests, with no rule indicating to the
contrary, that Linked CFJ recusals are also distinct; a recused Judge is
recused separately from each Linked CFJ and not from the whole.  The
last paragraph of R2024 lends further support to this by suggesting that
a Judge can be recused from a Linked CFJ while remaining assigned to
the other CFJs it was Linked to.  Again, this is only suggested, not
explicitly laid out.

Still, it is enough to move forward and examine Rule 408, wherein it
reads: "A Judge recused according to this Rule commits the Class 3
Infraction of Failure to Judge...".  This tells us that the origin of
the penalty lies in being recused, which is also an action of sorts.
Since we have established that each recusal is (probably) distinct,
this suggests that each punishable action in this case is also distinct,
which runs counter to the caller's citation of Rule 1816.

In summary, I find that the vast preponderance of evidence does not
support the caller's arguments, and so I hereby render a judgement of
FALSE.

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