=========================  Criminal Case 1785  =========================

    BobTHJ breached R1504, Criminal Cases, by failing to issue an
    Apology within 72 hours.

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

Caller:                                 BobTHJ

Judge:                                  Zefram
Judgement:                              GUILTY/APOLOGY

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

History:

Called by BobTHJ:                       05 Nov 2007 23:05:42 GMT
Defendant BobTHJ informed:              05 Nov 2007 23:57:23 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended:                  06 Nov 2007 00:07:40 GMT
Assigned to Zefram:                     06 Nov 2007 10:42:30 GMT
Judged GUILTY/APOLOGY by Zefram:        07 Nov 2007 16:36:06 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

I fully admit to my guilt in this case and throw myself upon
the mercy of the courts.

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

Caller's Evidence:

[Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:05:42 -0700]

I submit the following Apology as directed by CFJ 1740:
{
I understand this apology is not apt to earn my an ovation by any
means, yet here is my feeble attempt to right those wrongs which I
have committed. There is of course no excuse for the tardiness I have
displayed in issuing this apology. Like a stoat, I attempted to slip
away from this sentence with obstinate recusancy. For this I am duly
repentant. To be honest, I knew that to truly comply with this
sentence would be a hummer, and the prospect frightened me. In panic,
my response was inaudibleness (or the e-mail equivalent).

Tardiness aside, of what value would this apology be if I did not
address the issues which prompted the sentence in the first place? It
would be like unto a paillard that has been cooked until it is dry,
and thus leaves an unpleasant burnt taste upon the pallete, and a
weakness in the jaw from prolonged chewing. Therefore, I do humbly
apologize, both to the players and watchers of Agora for failing to
notify the defendant of CFJ 1735. I thank the courts for their
leniency in my sentencing, and I vow to better serve Agora in the
future.

But (and I have selected this conjunctive carefully) before I
conclude, I must address the issues which, while not relieving me of
my guilt, does in fact play a major role in my downfall. During
Agora's long growth up the espalier of Nomic history, a fair amount of
limature has been sheared away: former players who, while initially
attracted to Agora, soon depart to other things. This phenomenon is
due in part to the tediousness and nitpickery of established players,
as well as the engorgement of the ruleset with bland and uninteresting
rules which serve no better purpose than to provide a subject for
endless squabbles among the previously mentioned players. It was in
such a position that I found myself, with a growing apathy and
disinterest in the game (if it could be called such). Agora has become
a skeletal cadaver. While the rigid (yet brittle) structure is still
in place, all flesh has long ago been eaten away. Therefore to you, my
fellow Agorans, I pledge my return to Agora to be one of resurrection!
I hope to bring new life to Agora by returning the 'game' to the game.
I ask that you join me in cobbling together a vibrant and intensely
complex monstrosity with a high entertainment value.

Respectfully and humbly yours,
BobTHJ
}

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

Judge Zefram's Arguments:

The email record shows that the defendant did indeed fail to publish an
apology within the prescribed period, having been sentenced in CFJ 1740
on appeal.  Eir deregistration since then does not change eir status
as the ninny in CFJ 1740, nor does it cancel eir obligation to submit
an apology.  I therefore find the defendant GUILTY.

The ninny has shown remorse, both for eir original offence in CFJ 1740
and for eir lateness in apologising.  I therefore find it unnecessary
to escalate to a more severe sentence than that handed down in CFJ 1740.
I sentence the ninny to publish an APOLOGY containing the words "aridity",
"commingle", "floccinaucinihilipilificatiousness", "gardener", "jejune",
and "womble".

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

Gratuitous Arguments by BobTHJ:

As I deeply regret my tardiness for which I have been found guilty in
CFJ 1785, I find the only reprieve to my guilty conscious is to
somehow give back to the great game Agora. Therefore, I create the
following contest, which serves as my apology:
{
1. The name of this contest is "The Agoran Proposal Awards". The
contestmaster for this contest is BobTHJ.

2. Any player may become party to this agreement by announcement.

3. Each first-class player may nominate any proposal in one (and only
one) of the following categories by announcement:

 a. Dry - appropriate for proposals that display particular aridity
and/or blandness. Proposals nominated for this category should be good
bedtime reading.

 b. Sticky - appropriate for proposals that commingle two distinct and
separate game concepts together into one proposal.

 c. Useless - appropriate for proposals that display a high level of
floccinaucinihilipilificatiousness. Proposals nominated for this
category should have little or no true function.

 d. Rejuvinating - appropriate for proposals that add life and
excitement to the game. Proposals nominated for this category should
cultivate interesting concepts in the same way as a gardener who tends
his field.

 e. Silly - appropriate for proposals that dispaly jejune behavior.
Proposals nominated in this category typically will not be taken
seriously.

 f. Befuddling - appropriate for proposals which could be submitted by
a womble. Proposals nominated in this category will be excessively
complex, far beyond what is required to convey the concept.

4. At the end of each week, the eligible proposals for that week are
the proposals whose voting period ended during that week. Each
eligible proposal that received more nominations for a specific
category than any other proposal shall be the winner of that category
for that week. If two or more proposals are tied for the most
nominations in a category, or if there were no nominations for a
category then there shall be no winner of that category for that week.

5. At the end of each week, the Contestmaster shall divide any points
e is allowed to award evenly among each winning proposal and
distribute them to the author(s) of said proposals. If an author of a
winning proposal is not a contestant, then the points that would be
distributed to them will instead not be distributed.

6. The contestmaster shall keep a record of all winning proposals and
their authors.

7. A contestant may cease to be party to this agreement by
announcement. The contestmaster may dissolve this contest by
announcement.
}

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