=========================  Criminal Case 1820  =========================

    Goethe violated Rule 2149 by publishing the quoted message (with


Caller:                                 omd
Barred:                                 G.
Barred:                                 BobTHJ

Judge:                                  Taral
Judgement:                              INNOCENT



Called by omd:                          04 Dec 2007 15:16:05 GMT
Defendant G. informed:                  04 Dec 2007 15:44:31 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended:                  04 Dec 2007 20:23:44 GMT
Assigned to Taral:                      05 Dec 2007 02:25:21 GMT
Judged INNOCENT by Taral:               10 Dec 2007 21:59:55 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

It contained the matter to be decided: whether or not Agora should
perform nonsense (as opposed to granting a win or some silly thing
like that).

Recklessly claiming a false thing like a lack of valid R107
information where it was certainly specifiedis a violation of Rule


Caller's Evidence:

On 12/3/07, Kerim Aydin <kerim@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >>> I intend, on behalf of Agora, with Agoran Consent, to
> >>> nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueo
> >>> ydjjk.
> I don't know if anyone's done this yet but:
> I hereby identify that the above "notice" lacked the information required
> to initiate an Agoran decision, as specified in R107(a).


Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

I am INNOCENT of recklessly making false claims.

First of all, I am a reasonable person and I had no idea what 'nkep'
was alleged to mean in game terms at the time that the attempt to
initiate the action was announced, and it became clear after the fact
that the initiator of the decision was specifically witholding
information on the potential in-game consequences of nkep, so I
so I believe my statement to be true.  This is an entirely orthogonal
issue to current court cases which question whether such phrases can
in fact be interpreted or privately empowered, so my claim was worth

Secondly, it is clear from discussions and surrounding court cases
that several other players (and eligible voters) were similarly
uninformed.  Therefore, this claim was far from reckless; in fact it
was reasonable, if controversial.  The level of clarity that R107a
requires is an open question, and it is perfectly resonable to
suggest and claim that if a broad cross-section of eligible voters
don't understand the intended game consequences of an initiated
decision from information contained in the notice initiating it and
by information resaonable avaiable to them, than by R107a the
decision has not been initiated.  It may be a matter of an inquiry
case to determine if this is true, but as no precedent has been set
my claim was resonable and it is not a reckless claim.

This brings up the final point:  I hope the judge will set a strong
precedent, that the bar should be extremely high on showing reckless
intent assessing R2149 truthfulness for claims made on controversial
matters (for example, in the name of stopping a self-ratification
clock).  Claims made on matters which are even reasonably in doubt
should be given the benefit of the doubt.  It should be expected that
many or most such claims would be made in cases where the truth was
uncertain, otherwise, there would be no claim to make!  Uncertain
claims SHOULD be addressed in the court of inquiry, not the criminal
court.  The result of too low a bar for guilt in criminal proceeding
would be an endless series of suits and countersuits, ultimately
leading to a chilling effect preventing any sort of claim of error
being made on uncertain matters, and in fact this would go against
the R101-guaranteed participation in the fora.   This is clearly not
beneficial to the game.


Judge Taral's Arguments:

Rule 2149/8 [in part]

      A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes
      that in doing so e is telling the truth.

The defendant has stated in eir defense that e believe the statment to
be true. In order for the Court to find em guilty, the Court must
somehow find that the defendant *could not* have believed what e
claimed. This is a strong criterion, requiring an admission,
conflicting public statements (and even these are subject to the fact
that people can change their beliefs), or some other strong evidence.