==============================  CFJ 1845  ==============================

    comex initiated two criminal cases in Message-Id:
    <200712181706.58039.comexk@gmail.com>

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

Caller:                                 Murphy
Barred:                                 Zefram

Judge:                                  OscarMeyr
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Murphy:                       20 Dec 2007 05:33:57 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr:                  20 Dec 2007 10:55:06 GMT
Judged FALSE by OscarMeyr:              09 Jan 2008 23:39:59 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

The message in question mentions Rule 2149 (Truthiness) in the
arguments.  The only other rule it mentions is 2145 (Partnerships)
quoted in the evidence, and it is clear from context that e is
alleging a violation of the former and not the latter.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Exhibit 1 of 1:  Body of the message referenced in the statement

I create a criminal case accusing BobTHJ of, as a knight, publishing a=20
statement that e believed to be false in eir message with Message-ID=20

<56732cfd0710291242h67fc331and43dd1076934828@mail.gmail.com>
I create a criminal case accusing BobTHJ of, as a knight, publishing a=20
statement that e believed to be false in eir message with Message-ID=20
<56732cfd0711041449h23dcc500id9e643c76643d597@mail.gmail.com>.

Arguments:

At the time of the alleged action, R2149 was truthiness.

Evidence:
The messages he is being accused about:
[[
On Oct 29, 2007 2:42 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have created an undisclosed R2145 agreement. The parties to this
> agreement are undisclosed. The nature of this agreement allows me to
> act fully on its behalf. The name of this agreement is Fookiemyartug.
>=20
> On behalf of Fookiemyartug: Fookiemyartug registers.
>=20
> BobTHJ


On Nov 4, 2007 5:49 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hereby claim Fookiemyartug to be a person per the rules of Agora.
>=20
> BobTHJ
]]

And...
[[
On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Here's an interesting one:
>
> At the time Fookiemyartug registered I was the only partner. comex
> retroactively became a partner during my nkep scam, but prior to that
> point Fookiemyartug has a basis of only me. I have been meaning to
> expose this for some time to test its legality but never got around to
> it. I had hoped someone would call me on it so I could retroactively
> add a second partner to the agreement and legalize it before a CFJ
> could be resolved.
>
> BobTHJ
]]

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

Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:

R1504 lays out the requirements for initiating a criminal case, that the CFJ
message must clearly specify:
      a) The identity of the defendant.

      b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.

      c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)
         by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.

In the message in question, items (a) and (c) were clearly specified.  For the
record:  comex identified BobTHJ as the defendant, meeting the requirement for
(a).  comex stated the action in question (namely, that the defendant, as a
knight, publishing a statement that e believed to be false), meeting the
requirement for (c).

Which leaves (b).

comex referred to Rule 2149 (Truthiness) in eir arguments.  This rule was the
only rule directly cited in the CFJ message, and so presumedly was intended to
be the rule allegedly breached.  Rule 2145 was cited indirectly, in the
message comex's called for judgement on; I agree with Murphy that the context
of the CFJ clearly does not intend to allege a violation of R2145.

By deduction, the intent in the CFJ was most likely to allege a violation of
R2149:  It is the only rule directly cited, and the action in question
directly pertains to R2149.  So R2149 was duly specified, although given the
phrasing of the message, the rule was specified with less than GIA Flawless
clarity.

What degree of clarity is appropriate?  Game tradition (to the best of my
understanding) is tolerant of small variations in phrasing that do not
obstruct a message's meaning.  H. CotC Zefram did not find R2149 to be
specified clearly enough for em to process the CFJ as originally submitted.
As it is Agora's practice to defer to an officer's reasonable discretion in
the performance of eir duties (and the H. CotC did process the CFJ upon
resubmission), I find that R2149 was NOT specified with adequate clarity.

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

Judge OscarMeyr's Evidence:

1:  Rule 1504/18 [Relevant part]
Criminal Cases

      There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.
      A criminal case's purpose is to determine the culpability of a
      particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach
      of the rules, and to punish the guilty.  A criminal case CAN be
      initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly specifies
      all of the following:

      a) The identity of the defendant.

      b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.

      c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)
         by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
--
2:  H. CotC Zefram's response to an earlier draft ruling in this CFJ:

Benjamin Schultz wrote:

>                                      R2149 was specified clearly
> enough that the H. CotC was able to process the intended CFJ and
> assign the case for a ruling.
>

You misremember: actually I rejected that message, having not perceived a
specification of rule allegedly breached.  In looking for that I skipped
past the section labelled as "arguments".  Arguments are by custom and
(usually) intent quite distinct from the formal parameters of the CFJ.
What I processed successfully was the revised attempt to call those CFJs,
which did explicitly specify the rule along with the defendant and action.

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