=========================  Criminal Case 1938  =========================

    ais523 violated Rule 2158 by assigning an inappropriate judgement to
    CFJ 1932.

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

Caller:                                 Wooble
Barred:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  Iammars
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              INNOCENT

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

History:

Called by Wooble:                       07 May 2008 19:52:21 GMT
Defendant ais523 informed:              08 May 2008 21:32:37 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended:                  08 May 2008 21:57:37 GMT
Assigned to Iammars:                    11 May 2008 04:48:00 GMT
Iammars recused:                        23 May 2008 13:51:56 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        23 May 2008 13:55:54 GMT
Judged INNOCENT by omd:                 28 May 2008 15:10:39 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Eir judgment in this case is not "a reasonably equitable
resolution of the situation at hand with respect to the matters raised
in the initiation of the case", rule 2169's criteria for
appropriateness; in fact eir judgment was made entirely to promote a
scam from which e immediately tried to benefit, an egregious abuse of
the judicial system.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

{{{{
For reference, I repeat the CFJ's evidence here:
{{{
Eir judgment in this case is not "a reasonably equitable
resolution of the situation at hand with respect to the matters raised
in the initiation of the case", rule 2169's criteria for
appropriateness; in fact eir judgment was made entirely to promote a
scam from which e immediately tried to benefit, an egregious abuse of
the judicial system.
}}}

I agree that the the part of this evidence before the semicolon is
alleging something that would have been a real offense if committed,
and I plead INNOCENT to that. As far as I can tell, the rules do not
prevent promoting scams (there have been many scams in the past,
after al), nor scams from which the perpetrator immediately tries to
benefit, so I plead UNIMPUGNED to that bit. Likewise, I see no evidence
that egregrious abuses of the judicial system are necessarily against
the rules; most scams are an egregrious abuse of something or other.

As for the first part, I maintain that my judgement was an equitable
solution to the matters raised in the initiation of the case, and
therefore a reasonably equitable solution (in common English usage,
'reasonably equitable' is a strictly less strict condition than
'equitable'). The matter raised was a complaint by root that root hadn't
complied with a SHOULD requirement; I discussed this issue with the
parties to the contract, and all parties to the contract agreed that
the judgement that I gave was equitable. Because the rule asks about
the matters raised in the initiation of the case, which only referred to
root, and root was the initiator, the obvious set to be equitable over
is the set of all parties to the contract that the equity case was called
in connection to, plus root; thus just {root}. root considers the
judgement to be equitable (for evidence, see the message linked at
<http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-May/010
433.html>).
Therefore, this was an equitable judgement, and "a reasonably equitable
resolution of the situation at hand with respect to the matters raised
in the initiation of the case", so I am INNOCENT.

Additonally, to address some other points: nowhere is it listed in the
current SLR, as far as I can tell, that a judgement in an equity case
has to be reasonable, nor that it has to be a minimal judgement that
solves the problem, nor that it cannot contain other irrelevant
information that does not make the judgement less relevant. Besides,
that was the version of the judgement that root found equitable;
a simpler judgement may have been found less equitable by the set of
players {root}, who were the players I was trying to impose an
equitable outcome on.
}}}}

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

Judge omd's Arguments:

>From CFJ 1804:
> It is in the best interest of the game that a judge not be coerced
> into a verdict---ethically, e should "not avoid" giving a verdict that
> e believes appropriate according to the rules.  This is true even if
> the judgement is subsequently found to be inappropriate, provided the
> original judge made eir finding in good faith.

It is clear that judge ais523 thought that eir judgement of CFJ 1932--
although a scam-- was reasonably equitable and therefore an
appropriate judgement.

Was it?  It's probably not necessary for this case to determine
whether the judgement was in fact appropriate, but Goethe's defense in
CFJ 1951 makes the case that it is not, by using exaggeration ("OMG
POINES") and ad hominem attacks (the Latin at the end, which I won't
even bother to translate due to its length) and indeed by claiming to lay
out a standard (in arguments for the defense, no less, not a
judgement!) in order to obscure the fact that it is largely spurious.

Of course the entirety of an equation must be considered when
determining appropriateness-- I agree that Rule 2169 is to be
interpreted such that the entire equation must be reasonably
equitable, as well as a resolution of the situation at hand with
respect to blah blah.

But Goethe then leaps from that to the conclusion that gravy can
violate equity, even in a set of one, with this example:

> If that were true, it would be possible to say "here's your 10 cents,
> but I'm going to arbitrarily punish root by penalizing em 500 points,
> and you can't anything about it because it's not part of the "situation
> at hand."   No reasonable person---and at this point, it is impossible
> for me to consider the scammers to be in any way reasonable---would
> find this equitable.  This example of "negative gravy" shows that the
> equity of the situation includes THE WHOLE SITUATION of the
> judgement, gravy and all, as that gravy (positive or negative) can
> SUBSTANTIALLY SKEW the equity with respect to the "matters raised."

I pass over the fact that equity judgements like that could be
rejected by the parties, and the inability of equations to arbitrarily
remove points, and refer only to whether a judgement that punished
root by penalizing em 500 points, if valid, would be equitable.

The simple fact is that while this judgement would be unfair -->
inequitable in a contract with multiple parties, because the other
parties would not be penalized 500 points, a judgement that penalized
everyone 500 points would always be equitable among the parties-- fair
between the parties-- because each party is equally punished.  (This
judgement might be appropriate, in the normal sense of the word, if
the original contract was part of a scam.)

Rule 2169 uses "equitable" without specifying the set of entities
among whom the judgement must be equitable.  I find that the only
reasonable set to use is the set of parties to the contract.
Therefore, since, in a one-party pledge, each party is necessarily
treated as well as every other party, any judgement of an equity case
pertaining to such is equitable.

The fact that both CFJ 1932's judgement (if it worked) and this
hypothetical everyone-loses-500-points judgement would be inequitable
with respect to all players does not affect the situation.

I admit that whether the parties consider the judgement equitable is
irrelevant to whether it is appropriate.  However, in a case where
multiple appropriate judgements are available (like this one), the
judge probably should choose the one most satisfactory to the parties,
to minimize the chance of some party rejecting the equation and the
issue possibly becomining a criminal case.  ais523 is therefore to be
commended for choosing an equation wholly satisfactory to all parties.

Now I am left with several appropriate judgements-- EXCUSED is, by the
precedent at the start of this judgement, appropriate, and so is
UNAWARE, unless you agree with Goethe that the scamsters' arguments
about equitability are unreasonable.  (I don't, since I agree with
those arguments, despite not standing to gain from the scam.)  But
now, INNOCENT is also appropriate.

Since INNOCENT is the strongest judgement in favor of the defendant,
and cases alleging that inappropriate judgements have been made really
shouldn't ever be called unless the judgement is egregiously
inappropriate (different from being a scam!), I judge CFJ 1938
INNOCENT.

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