=========================  Criminal Case 2653  =========================

    coppro broke Rule 2253 (power-2) by creating the second in a set of
    Local Election Cards in a way not explicitly permitted by the rules.

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

Caller:                                 G.
Barred:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  BobTHJ
Judgement:                              GUILTY/SILENCE

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

History:

Called by G.:                           07 Aug 2009 18:36:12 GMT
Defendant scshunt informed:             07 Aug 2009 18:36:12 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ:                     08 Aug 2009 15:52:12 GMT
Judged GUILTY/SILENCE by BobTHJ:        16 Aug 2009 21:42:13 GMT

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

Gratuitous Evidence by scshunt:

I create 33 Local Election cards in my own possession.

R2253 says:

      The dealer for a deck CAN, by announcement:
       * create a card that is part of that deck in the possession of
         any entity;
       * destroy any card that is part of that deck;
       * transfer a card that is part of that deck between any two
         entities;

      however the e SHALL only perform these actions as explicitly
      permitted by the Rules.  E MAY transfer, play, or destroy cards
      in eir own possession as any other player generally MAY.

Note in particular the last sentence. It says I MAY award cards from my
basic deck as any player generally MAY. Any player MAY award any assets
to any other player by virtue of the default assumption that actions are
legal. However, other players CANNOT do this; this protects the game. I
CAN perform such awards, and I MAY do so because any other player
generally MAY.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

coppro's rules interpretation that e MAY create cards as indicated is
wholly unreasonable (a claim that e thought the rules should work that
is inappropriate), and breach of officer's duty to win the game
should be punished in proportion to the award.  E needed 33 cards and
created them illegally, so should be punished for each.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, ais523 wrote:
>> Even if the scam worked I still think this warrants 33 NOVs (well, as
>> many as can be supported) for violating the SHALL.
>
> The scam failed, the sort of card coppro created was a different sort of
> card from what e subsequently attempted to play.

Heh, I'm guessing that was on purpose... trolled me in anyway.  Destroy
the 33 and I'd be happy with a single penalty :| ...

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

I recommend double penalties for the breach of trust acting in an
obviously illegal manner.  -G.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:

It has been pointed out to me that I misread Rule 2253, thinking it also
provided an exception for creating cards, which it does not. As a
result, I plead that I reasonably believed that my actions were legal,
according to the following logic, which I believe to be correct save for
that error:

Rule 2253 says that
      The dealer for a deck CAN, by announcement:
       * create a card that is part of that deck in the possession of
         any entity;
       * destroy any card that is part of that deck;
       * transfer a card that is part of that deck between any two
         entities;

      however the e SHALL only perform these actions as explicitly
      permitted by the Rules.  E MAY transfer, play, or destroy cards
      in eir own possession as any other player generally MAY.

Rule 2152 defines the following terms:
      4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.

      5. MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the
         rule in question.

Specifically, transferring, playing, or destroying cards in my own
possession may be performed as any player MAY, and there is no
prohibition in Rule 2253 preventing any other player from doing so,
therefore that clause causes such actions to be legal; were it not for
my reasonable misreading of the rules, I would have been performing
legal actions.

I destroy 33 Local Election cards in my possession; I will not take
advantage of illegally-acquired goods.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

When planning something that is clearly against the spirit of a rule,
claiming to misread something obvious is disingenuous.  Scammers pulling
legalistic loopholes should be doing so at their own risk...obviously
a careful inspection of the rules in question is necessary just to
come to an opinion.  Otherwise, what do we have left in the criminal
courts at all?  Accepting this defense would mean accepting that every
MAY NOT is broken because I can claim "I missed the NOT, I thought it
said 'MAY'.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:

Someone will no doubt reference CFJs 1857a and 1858a as precedent. In
this case here, I genuinely believed my actions were legal and had
considered the actions and rules beforehand to ensure they were (I
failed in this regard). In those two CFJs, root was well aware that the
act was illegal, as a result e was definitely not ignorant.

I consider it to be a bug in the rules that a player can be found NOT
GUILTY if it is at all reasonable for em to have believed e was not
breaking the rule, even if e did not believe so at the time. This does
not change that the text of the rules take precedent, and honest mistake
is a reasonable mistake. Only if the misunderstanding were unreasonable
- for instance, someone had explicitly pointed out to em that the action
was illegal - would it be possible to find someone GUILTY.

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

Judge BobTHJ's Arguments:

I accept the caller's arguments for these cases and judge both GUILTY -
SILENCE.

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