On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the problem is that there's two ways to phrase the CFJ:
>
> "X did Y that violates Z" -- UNIMPUGNED
> "X did something that violates Z" -- INNOCENT(?)
Now that's just confusing. Officially the rule violated isn't even
part of the action.
{action="X did Y", rule=Z} -- UNIMPUGNED
{action="X violated Z by Y", rule=Z} -- INNOCENT
{action="X did something that violates Z", rule=Z} -- INNOCENT
Here the action is "failing to act in accordance with the Brainfuck
Golf contract", so root is INNOCENT.
In CFJ 1863, the statement was "BobTHJ violated rule 2158 by failing
to assign an appropriate judgement... by means of assigning an
inappropriate judgement instead." if it had been ruled, as I argued,
that e still had the chance to assign an appropriate judgement within
the time limit if remanded (in fact it was not, but oh well), and it
was furthermore ruled that the judgement was inappropriate (it
wasn't), BobTHJ would have been INNOCENT even if chances are he would
have eventually failed to assign an appropriate judgement, due to the
overspecificity of the statement.
What a hypothetical! But there is no reason for a prosecutor
initiating a criminal case to specify anything more than the literal
action the defendant attempted to perform, at least if e wants to find
the defendant guilty. For example, in this case, the action should
have been being the contestmaster of Brainfuck Golf.
