On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:49, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote: >> You keep making that claim. I personally think that this custom doesn't >> apply when the officer has "most of" a week (+ the election period) to >> prepare a report, but neither of us has evidence. If you give some, I think >> it would help your case. >> > As evidence, I submit that I can not recall in my 2+ years of history > playing Agora where a newly appointed officer is dinged for lateness > within 7 days of taking office. Though perhaps the burden of proof > lies with the appeals panel in finding a history of such > penalties/cases?
In sentencing (rather than guilt) I think the burden is for the appellant to prove that the judge's sentence wasn't just (the rules are silent on this in particular, but it fits real world law as well as our standards for deferring to judges on inquiry cases). Here, there's a consensus is no dinging at less than 4 days, dinging after 7 days, but there's probably very few/no cases raised one way or the other in the 5-7 day range. The question is, is this because we don't punish, or because officers understand the expectation and have generally performed well in that range? If the latter then the punishment is justified; if there's no evidence whatsoever then (in punishment standards rather than guilt) it's the current judge should be given the deference determining the first precedent as long as it's not arbitrary and capricious (the decision, on reading, seems well-reasoned). -G.
