=========================  Criminal Case 2926  =========================

    omd violated rule 2202, committing the Class 8 Crime of Endorsing
    Forgery, by knowingly announcing intent to ratify an incorrect
    document without objection, without specifying the general nature of
    the document's error, and when a corrected document could be
    produced by reasonable effort (e.g. by inserting the word "not").

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

Caller:                                 ais523
Barred:                                 omd

Judge:                                  scshunt
Judgement:                              GUILTY/TIME OUT

Appeal:                                 2926a
Decision:                               AFFIRM

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       15 Dec 2010 19:52:01 GMT
Defendant omd informed:                 15 Dec 2010 19:52:01 GMT
Assigned to scshunt:                    20 Dec 2010 02:01:25 GMT
Judged GUILTY/TIME OUT by scshunt:      20 Dec 2010 03:29:07 GMT
Appealed by omd:                        20 Dec 2010 03:46:23 GMT
Appeal 2926a:                           20 Dec 2010 03:46:23 GMT
AFFIRMED on Appeal:                     06 Jan 2011 00:00:00 GMT

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

Caller's Evidence:

On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 14:45 -0500, omd wrote:
> I intend, Without Objection, to ratify the following document (which
> isn't even incorrect!):
> {
> If this document is ever ratified, at the time it is ratified, Rule
> 1551 will change the power of Rule 2324 to 3 but make no other
> gamestate changes.
> }

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

I see that this was intended to exploit the actual wording of
ratification; however, stating "ever ratified" implies that the document
is only correct if ratification has the same meaning forever. Making
statements about the future - forever after! - is fraught with danger in
a nomic. (Another possibility why this document might be incorrect; rule
2324 might be repealed, or already have power 3, at the time.)

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

ais523 has pointed out that the document is
incorrect because the definition of ratification could be changed in
the (far) future.  This is a technicality, of course, especially as I
could have avoided charges simply by noting the incorrectness, or by
changing it from "ever" to "in the next few days"; however, as I am
actively trying to exploit the rules, it is reasonable to give me the
maximum punishment for any rule violation whatsoever.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

omd has submitted and distributed an urgent proposal to change the
definition of ratification to one in which the document in question
would not be true even if ratified. Had e forgotten about a proposal
(6938) that e not only wrote emself, but distributed in the previous 2
hours?

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

Actually, I'm not sure the document is incorrect; rather,
its correctness is indeterminate, as it refers to future events.  If I
had been more specific about time frames (the document is meant to be
ratified before 6938 passes), it would have been correct despite the
future reference, as it's of the form "if X, then Y", where Y would
logically follow from X.  However, it cannot be considered incorrect
unless (X and not Y) actually occurs.

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

Judge scshunt's Arguments:

First, I will discuss the factual truth of the document. The idea behind
it was to set up a retroactive game state which would then immediately
cause the effect of raising a rule's power. By making this statement
conditional on the ratification, e hoped to avoid the law against
ratifying a false document. This, unfortunately for em, does not work,
as there is no gamestate by which Rule 1551 would actually make that
change. Agoran precedence has long held that no entity can set up a
delayed effect of this form, so there is no reason that ratification
would suddenly be able to do so.

I do not believe the reasonability defense applies here as there is no
Agoran precedence by which this could possibly occur, and ais523 very
recently judged that ratification can fail due to the impossibility of
the desired game state.

Accordingly, I judge this case GUILTY.

Now, for punishment. DISCHARGE is clearly inappropriate as this is not
an extraordinary circumstance and it would certainly not be unjust to
provide some punishment. As omd has a dictatorship, a material
punishment seems silly, SILENCE and FINE are not good punishments. As
this is clearly a rule breach of high severity, due to being the most
severe crime defined in the rules - neither COMMUNITY SERVICE nor
APOLOGY seem appropriate. Therefore I sentence omd to TIME OUT 7.

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

Appellant omd's Arguments:

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Sean Hunt <scshunt@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
wrote:
> This, unfortunately for em, does not work, as there is no
> gamestate by which Rule 1551 would actually make that change. Agoran
> precedence has long held that no entity can set up a delayed effect of this
> form, so there is no reason that ratification would suddenly be able to do
> so.

There is no delayed effect here.  The document is a sort of prophecy,
which states that something will happen in its future.  Looking at it
from the present, we can say the prophecy is true if Rule 1551 does
actually make the specified change at the time of ratification, false
if ratification has occurred but the change has not, and still
undetermined otherwise.  If the document does ever get ratified, Rule
1551 will change the gamestate so that it is true, but in the mean
time, it is neither true nor false.

> I do not believe the reasonability defense applies here as there is no
> Agoran precedence

precedent, but I think the above argument is reasonable even if the
court ends up disagreeing with it (although it's moot because the
document won't be ratified).

> Accordingly, I judge this case GUILTY.

Note also that, whether or not it was actually illegal, I have already
been punished for this particular action: I NoVed myself for violating
Rule 2215 (Truthiness), and closed the NoV.

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