=========================  Criminal Case 3194  =========================

    ehird violated rule 2205 by submitting a CFJ without submitting such
    arguments and/or evidence (relevant to that case) as e were
    reasonably able to collect, nor understanding the full implications
    of failing to submit such arguments and carefully weighing them.


Caller:                                 ais523
Barred:                                 ehird

Judge:                                  FKA441344

Judge:                                  omd

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              GUILTY/APOLOGY



Called by ais523:                       25 Mar 2012 22:36:35 GMT
Defendant ehird informed:               25 Mar 2012 22:36:35 GMT
Assigned to FKA441344:                  29 Mar 2012 06:41:24 GMT
FKA441344 recused:                      09 Apr 2012 22:31:41 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        06 May 2012 18:18:48 GMT
omd recused:                            26 May 2012 01:54:03 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     26 May 2012 01:55:01 GMT
Judged GUILTY/APOLOGY by Murphy:        26 May 2012 16:26:06 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Rule excerpts:
Rule 2152:
      7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED:  Before failing to perform
         the described action, the full implications of failing to
         perform it should (in the ordinary-language sense) be
         understood and carefully weighed.
Rule 2205:
      Each of the following participants in a judicial case SHOULD
      present such arguments and/or evidence (explicitly labeled)
      relevant to that case as e is reasonably able to collect:

      1) The initiator, when initiating the case.

The only past judgement I could find on the subject with a reasonable
search through the CotC database (filtering on "should" in arguments/
evidence, and looking at all criminal cases) was CFJ 3120 ("ais523
violated a SHOULD requirement in rule 2205 by submitting this CFJ."),
which found that actually considering the full implications of failing
to perform an action (and, presumably, carefully weighing them) is
sufficient to avoid violating a SHOULD requirement. Sgeo pointed me to
CFJ 2383 ("Sgeo violated rule 1750 by failing to read the ruleset during
Read the Ruleset week, and also failing to understand or to carefully
weigh the consequences of this failure."), which I somehow missed
looking through the list (the CFJ itself is light on arguments, but
there are lots of interesting arguments in the appeal); CFJ 2383a found
that it was possible to deliberately violate a SHOULD requirement.
Thanks for the reminder, Sgeo!

Probably it's also worth mentioning CFJ 3188, which sort-of found that a
mere statement from me that I wasn't Mr. Snuggles (combined with a lack
of any evidence that I was) was sufficient to legally consider me to not
be em. It's not the best of precedents, though, due to the lightness of
its reasoning.

(Note that CFJ 2105 is irrelevant here; the requirement violated is a
SHOULD requirement nowadays, but was a SHALL requirement at the time of
the CFJ. Just to save the judge of this CFJ some work chasing it up.)

We haven't had a good violated-a-SHOULD case for a while. In this case,
the evidence is reasonably clear-cut: ehird's CFJ came soon enough after
mine that he didn't really have time to consider the implications and
carefully weigh them (nor did e claim to have done in the message, nor
is e the sort of person who's at all likely to carefully weigh the
implications of something before acting impulsively, and e admitted to
not have done so on IRC). Especially with the precedent of CFJ 3188, I
think there's enough evidence that ehird didn't take the implications
into account. The arguments and evidence on the case e started are also
clearly deficient; they talk about why e submitted the case, but not
about the subject of the case, and the case is not trivial (I can see
arguments for both FALSE and UNDETERMINED, and the case could probably
do with better arguments, and it would be trivial to produce the
evidence of Mr. Snuggles claiming to be an existing player at a time
when kcnomic wasn't registered (it took me less than 10 seconds with my
mailreader's search function to find the message with subject "BAK: mr
snuggles' manifesto"); so I guess it would come down to whether you
trust Mr. Snuggles not to lie about eir identity, despite the effort e's
taken to keep it secret).

The difference between this case and CFJ 2383/2383a is that in the
previous case, Sgeo was aware of the recommendation to read the rules
during February, whereas in this case, ehird was presumably not aware of
the recommendation to submit reasonably accessible arguments and
evidence on a CFJ when creating it (e is not currently a player, and
although e knew of the recommendation in question, was under the
mistaken belief that it applied only to players, like the requirement to
label arguments and evidence correctly is). Ignorance of the rules is no
defence in the case of SHALL requirements, but is it in SHOULD
requirements? (Note that the rule has not been amended since ehird was
last a player, and e should have known what it said then).


Caller's Evidence:

On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 22:17 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 25 March 2012 21:49, ais523 <callforjudgement@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > CFJ: kcnomic is a player.
> CFJ: kcnomic is mister snuggles.
> Arguments: I'm trying to destroy Agora by systematically clogging the
> courts with nonsense CFJs.
> Evidence: This message.

Also, the following discussion on IRC (edited to remove irrelevant
chatter, but the original discussion is logged at

<http://codu.org/logs/log/_esoteric/2012-03-25#220322ais523> so that the
judge can verify that I haven't omitted anything important:
[23:03] <ais523> elliott: in your very recent Mr. Snuggles CFJ, did you
consider the implications of submitting it without proper arguments or
[23:04] <elliott> ais523: I'm not a player, so I don't think I have to
[23:05] <ais523> so you didn't?
[23:06] <elliott> ais523: maybe I did, maybe I didn't... whichever one
will not result in you doing something nasty like criminal cfjing me
[23:07] <ais523> I'm going to criminal CFJ you /anyway/
[23:07] <elliott> oh
[23:07] <elliott> well, I definitely did
[23:07] <elliott> I concluded that it was for the good of Agora for me
to submit that CFJ
[23:07] <elliott> mainly because it would lead to the game's collapse,
which is for the best
[23:07] <ais523> you're not helping
[23:07] <ais523> I wanted a nice clear precedent on whether it was
possible to violate a SHOULD or not
[23:08] <elliott> oh
[23:08] <elliott> well, truthfully, I didn't :P
[23:08] <elliott> i suppose the only way i can be punished is EXILE,
which is rather ineffective.
[23:09] <ais523> somehow I guessed that :)
[23:09] <ais523> and indeed, and it's possible you'll have a low or null
[23:09] <ais523> *punishment
[23:09] <ais523> even if you are found guilty


Gratuitous Arguments by Bucky:

CfJ 3018 is a direct precedent, although it dealt with not labeling evidence
rather than not including enough of it.


Judge Murphy's Arguments:

In CFJ 3018:

  * The severity of the inaction was low.  (The unlabeled text was
    clearly evidence in context.)

  * There was no evidence that the defendant hadn't thought about the
    implications of eir inaction.

  * Thus, it was reasonable to assume that e had thought about it.

In this case:

  * The severity of the inaction is higher.  (The case was not
    obviously IRRELEVANT or FALSE, and e didn't explicitly state
    whether e had any real evidence either way.  Granted, the judge of
    such a case can just respond "UNDETERMINED, come back when you've
    done your homework", but that's still extra work for em.)

  * E admitted that e hadn't thought about the implications.  (E has
    not denied the IRC conversation, despite having had ample time and
    opportunity to do so.  In said conversation, e didn't even address
    the possibility of being prosecuted until ais523 asked whether e had
    thought about things.)

GUILTY / APOLOGY (destroy, is, such, an, ugly, word)