=========================  Criminal Case 2388  =========================

    comex broke Rule 2215 by attempting to mislead persons as to the
    contents of R2125 in eir publication of the SLR on or about Feb 19,
    2009.

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

Caller:                                 G.
Barred:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Taral
Judgement:                              NOT GUILTY

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

History:

Called by G.:                           19 Feb 2009 20:42:15 GMT
Defendant omd informed:                 20 Feb 2009 04:42:15 GMT
Assigned to Taral:                      21 Feb 2009 07:55:36 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by Taral:             27 Feb 2009 03:52:53 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Even though the misleading rule was intended as a joke, I
frequently require (as a judge or player) to go back to past versions
of the SLR; just recently as far back as 2004.  While in the context
of current discussion, misleading may be slight, it will be very
hard to avoid being misled, weeks or months from now, if I (or anyone)
needs to look back to the relevant "SLR"---especially (for example) if
one greps the ruleset looking for certain text in "regulation
regulations" and doesn't find it (a common way of looking through a
ruleset I suspect).  The duty of providing a clearly-labeled set of
records for future use should be taken seriously, and standards should
be set so that an Officer's record containing a purposeful error (as
opposed to an accidental one) is in fact intended to mislead even if
the joke seems obvious at the time.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

Barring some controversy over regulated actions
this week (Rule 2125 has not been amended in two months and there are
no current proposals to amend it), a future observer specifically
selecting this week's email SLR, missing Wooble's message sent
directly afterward, and grepping it for information about regulation
without actually reading Regulation Regulations would seem to be
trying quite hard to be misled.  Nevertheless, point taken, and I
plead GUILTY as the text was misleading regardless of whether anyone
is actually misled.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

I appreciate that, but I'll give an example.  In a recent court case, I
needed the context of a term in the SLR from October, and wanted to know
all the places the term appeared in the rules (not unusual when looking
for how a word is defined).  I went back and clicked on the October SLR
on the OFF archive and searched the web page for the term I needed.  I do
this all the time, it is unreasonable for me to know that there is an
addendum in the BUS archive somewhere or remember that a couple months
later (and for court cases, that length of delay isn't unusual); if the
term had been in the "missing" rule I would just not find it and not know
what I'd missed.  If the "error" had been an addition, like "comex
was here", or even the text you used, but with no deletions, I probably
wouldn't be bothered at all (because the only thing that would happen then
is I would get some spurious search results and know right away they were
silly, and maybe then remember the context).

In rules research, there's nothing more annoying than swearing you know
that a phrase is somewhere in the rules but not knowing which rule, or not
knowing the exact phrase, searching for it, wondering if it was repealed,
or if it used a synonym, etc., then making an announcement based on the
phrase being gone and being told "actually it's here, you just missed it."
Please don't add to this! :P

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Pavitra:

I would advocate UNAWARE here, as e needed it pointed out to
em before e realized it was potentially misleading.

... oh wait, that's been restructured. NOT GUILTY by reason (d).

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

Officers have a duty that they freely choose to undertake.  It's not the
responsibility of others to tell them what their duty is, so UNAWARE
should be a hard(er) defense for an Officer who was elected to a position
by choice, especially one who has served for some time.   See CFJ 1424,
last 4 paragraphs of the judge's arguments.  If leniency is warranted,
the right mechanism would be to say that an Officer should have been
aware of the abuse (so UNAWARE is not an option in the culpability) but
not aware of the seriousness, and that this lack of awareness was
reasonable for an Officer in eir position (questionable IMO), so a
lighter sentence, or at least a "not-heavier" one, is in order.  -Goethe

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

Judge Taral's Arguments:

R2215 violations hinge on intent. Unfortunately, I don't see any
convincing evidence that comex was actually trying to mislead anyone
-- as e says, the text in question is pretty obviously not the right
text. Yes, perhaps it is misleading in hindsight, but I don't believe
that was the intent. NOT GUILTY by R1504(a).

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