=========================  Criminal Case 2537  =========================

    Wooble violated R2202 and committed the Class-8 Crime of Endorsing
    Forgery by knowingly using Ratification Without Objection to ratify
    a (prior to ratification) incorrect document when a corrected
    document could be produced with reasonable effort.

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

Caller:                                 omd
Barred:                                 Wooble

Judge:                                  ehird
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  OscarMeyr
Judgement:                              NOT GUILTY

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

History:

Called by omd:                          25 May 2009 20:54:18 GMT
Defendant Wooble informed:              25 May 2009 20:54:18 GMT
Assigned to ehird:                      26 May 2009 00:37:59 GMT
ehird recused:                          05 Jun 2009 20:23:28 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr:                  06 Jun 2009 06:42:51 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by OscarMeyr:         09 Jun 2009 22:17:36 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:54 PM, comex <comexk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Taral <taralx@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:44 AM, comex <comexk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This was sent two hours after Goethe's judgement that a certain other
>>> proposal existed in the pool.  Accordingly, NoV: Wooble violated R2202
>>> and committed the Class-8 Crime of Endorsing Forgery by knowingly
>>> using Ratification Without Objection to ratify a (prior to
>>> ratification) incorrect document when a corrected document could be
>>> produced with reasonable effort.
>>
>> I contest this.
>
> I initiate a criminal CFJ, noting that the Accused had plenty of
> warning and the opportunity to avoid violating the rule.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Wooble:

While ais523 was able to find one proposal that was in the pool that
was not in the published report, simply adding that proposal to the
report would not have guaranteed the accuracy of the report, any more
than my looking through the last 2 months of the public fora to find
missing proposals guaranteed this.  We still don't know if there are
more missing proposals, and considering the fact that we don't have a
complete archive of messages that have been sent to the public fora in
the past, it may be impossible to ever be sure of the "correct" status
of the pool.  comex's earlier assertion that the ability to find a
single proposal and thus produce a "more correct" report is nonsense;
a report is either correct or incorrect.  While there's now proof that
the report was incorrect, it's still unclear that a fully correct
report can be produced.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

As judge didn't notice the ratification attempt; if I
had noticed it I would have delayed the judgement to avoid the issue.
Since the judgement found that, to the best of available evidence,
there had been no ratifications in a long time and at least one
longstanding error, means that (if the Promotor had not ratified)
e would be publishing documents that e knew were likely to contain
other errors, so e would not be able to avoid breaching the rules
in a manner at least as serious.  -G.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:

Publishing an erroneous report (power-1 Rule) is less
serious than ratifying one (Class-8 Crime).

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

Ratifying a report that everyone understands to be erroneous for the
good of the game (or what the officer reasonably perceives to be the
good of the game), without objection (when anyone who cared would
have seen the judgement coming, and so could be said to tacitly agree
it was for the good of the game as no objections were forthcoming, or
at least it would be reasonable for the officer to so believe) is
less serious than willfully keeping the game in continual
uncertainty.  Otherwise, ratification would be unacceptably risky
for officers.

ps.  court cases raised about a document should block ratification,
not just self-ratificatation; generalization of R2201 in order here?

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Wooble:

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex <comexk@gmail.com> wrote:
> E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale
> proposals from the pool.

I did in fact do just that, assuming that I'd get an objection.
However, when I didn't, I figured trying to get an AI-3 proposal
passed was a lot harder than resolving my intent.

For the record, I'm not claiming EXCUSED or UNAWARE, but UNIMPUGNED;
the first NoV (which isn't currently the subject of a CFJ) because the
alleged crime was missing the first element or the crime, that I be
acting knowingly when I posted my intent to ratify (as I believed the
proposal pool to contain only the stated proposals at that time,
assuming Zefram had kept things orderly), and for the 2nd NoV because
knowingly ratifying an incorrect false report dos not violate R2202 if
a 'corrected' report cannot be created with reasonable effort.  Note
that this assumes 'corrected' means 'made correct' rather than 'made
closer to correct'.

In any case, if I'm GUILTY I believe 8 rests would be an excessive punishment.

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

Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:

I take issue with the fact that this case depends on the timing with
another CFJ ruling that a certain proposal existed in the proposal
pool.  I find guilt requirements (a) and (d) are awfully weak:  The
two hour time interval between the CFJ ruling that declared the
proposal in question to be in the pool and the attempt to ratify
challenges the notion that the attempt to ratify the suddenly-
incorrect pool report was made knowingly.  This questions whether (a)
the Defendant did in fact break R2202 and (d) whether the Defendant
reasonably believed that eir attempt to ratify the pool broke R2202.

I cannot find guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  I consider guilt
likely, but I consider my doubt reasonable.  I therefore rule NOT
GUILTY.

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