==============================  CFJ 1991  ==============================

    ehird has apologised as required by the judgement of the question on
    sentencing of CFJ 1943.

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

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  BobTHJ
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       07 Jun 2008 19:48:33 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ:                     08 Jun 2008 07:14:38 GMT
Judged TRUE by BobTHJ:                  09 Jun 2008 14:43:21 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

ehird recently submitted to the public forum a message with a
subject line indicating that e probably intended it to be an
apology related to CFJ 1943.

There are several factors that could cause ehird to not have
apologised correctly, leading to a judgement of FALSE. First, it
should be noted that although ehird has submitted something to a
public forum that contains the prescribed words, it was not clearly
labeled as an apology at all (the only such labeling was in the
subject line, which is not normative). On the other hand, the rules
do not require apologies to be labeled as such.

Another possible factor is that the word 'word' is not explicitly
defined in the ruleset. A rough count of the number of words in
ehird's message can be obtained by defining 'word' to be a
sequence of characters surrounded by whitespace that contains at
least one letter; such a count gives the value 193 (see the evidence
section). However, there are many potential complicating factors.

First, there are 6 occurences of the character sequence ' - '. This
is not normally considered to be a word; however, automatic word-
counting programs often count it as such. ehird has told me
privately that e used such a program and obtained a count of 199.

There are other things that might affect the count of words. By
many definitions, "don't" is actually 2 words; however, "suprised" is
not a word at all. Apparently "parttime" was a typo for "part time",
thus meaning that ehird was planning a 200-word message. However,
all of these are affected by rule 754/7(i):
{{{
      (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of
          a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is
          inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as
          the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.
}}}

"don't" and "suprised" definitely don't create ambiguities in meaning
(precedent is that typos are differences in spelling); therefore, rule
754/7 states that these are immaterial differences. However, common
sense suggests that they are not immaterial differences, as "don't" vs.
"do not" certainly has an effect on the word count. Therefore, it seems
to me that the ruleset contains a false statement, as long as there is
a rule that cares about counting words. As a result, at least part of
rule 1504/23 (the part about APOLOGY) would seem to contradict a rule
with higher power (the APOLOGY section implies that word counts are
relevant, whereas rule 754/7 states that under some circumstances they
aren't) and thus be ineffective. As a result, I haven't got a clue
what an appropriate judgement on this CFJ actually is.

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

Caller's Evidence:

The following email message, which has been annotated to
show a running count of the number of words so far at the end of
each line (here defining 'word' to be a sequence of characters
surrounded by whitespace that contains at least one letter):
{{{
From: agora-business-admin@agoranomic.org on behalf of Elliott Hird
Sent: Sat 07/06/2008 19:33
To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
Subject: BUS: Apology (re: CFJ 1943)

Oh dear, I apologise for my silliness in this matter - you see, today   13
I just woke up and realised I had not submitted my apology, really      26
terribly sorry, don't know how I can make it up to you, it is really    41
awful when something like this happens you know (I think Plato wrote    53
something about it) and so it distresses me quite a bit; so you can     67
see what it results in - this kind of stuff pervades my life, which is  81
a shame - anyway, I am very sorry, I had no 'schoolteacher' character   93
(even parttime would do, I do not wish to impose life schedules) when  106
I committed these crimes so I am afraid I had no moral basis to avoid  121
committing such crimes - I am suprised that you offered such a modest  133
punishment, for I would have personally imitated a caiman and put down 145
something much more harsh - so I would like to say that I am part of   160
the Ainu ethnic group and this severely impacts my thought processes   171
and actions, making me commit crimes more often (no offense to the     183
Ainu people) - I am truly sorry and I apologise profusely.             193
}}}

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

Judge BobTHJ's Arguments:

R754 can be interpreted multiple ways, and its purpose of the rule is
to prevent minor semantics and spelling errors from detracting from
the overall function of public messages. As the caller points out, the
word-count of the apology can be interpreted in a variety of different
ways. Since R754 provides no clear guidance, and there is no previous
precedent (as far as I am aware), it seems in the best interest of the
game to count the words in such a manner that is favorable to ehird,
since e made a good faith effort to fulfill eir sentence in writing a
truly repentant apology. I therefore rule TRUE.

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