On Jun 16, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
Oooh look, I broke my Oath. How unexpected!
I point my finger at Jason Cobb for the Class 0 Crime of Oathbreaking.
I fully admit that I am guilty of the above accusation.
[Also, sorry for all of the CFJ's I have created lately. I really don't mean to
overload the people who have to deal with them.]
I initiate a Call for Judgment on the following statement: "The investigator of the
Finger-pointing done in this message CAN impose a fine on Jason Cobb for the Crime of
Oathbreaking."
Evidence:
{
Excerpt from Rule 2450 ("Pledges"):
If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
pledge explicitly states otherwise.
Excerpt from Rule 2557 ("Removing Blots"):
When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand
of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the
perp with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of the
violation, within the following guidelines:
- If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime,
then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is 2.
}
Arguments:
{
Under Rule 2450, I have violated my Oath by sending the message in which I called this
CFJ. The Oath explicitly states that the Oath was under penalty of a Class 0 Crime. Thus,
under Rule 2450, I am guilty of the Class 0 Crime of Oathbreaking. Thus, under Rule 2478
("Vigilante Justice", not quoted here), the investigator SHALL (and CAN, by CFJ
precedent) impose the Cold Hand of Justice on the perp (me).
I note that the Rules do not explicitly state that N in a Class N crime must be
positive, or even an integer. I thus argue that a Class 0 Crime is a thing that
can happen.
Since the crime committed was a Class 0 Crime, the base value for the crime (in
Rule 2557's parlance) is 0. Thus, under Rule 2557, the investigator CAN do so
by levying a fine on me with a minimum of 1 (Blot) and a maximum of 0 (Blots).
This is a mathematical impossibility. There is no valid number of blots that
the investigator CAN fine me, yet the Rules assert that e CAN.
At this point, I will attempt to argue what I think the resolution should be.
I think this is clearly not IRRELEVANT. I don't believe it should be
INSUFFICIENT, as I have (hopefully) provided everything that supports my
argument. I don't think it should be DISMISS.
That leaves TRUE, FALSE, and PARADOXICAL.
The following is admittedly somewhat shaky, but here it goes:
I know of no rules or precedent that states what happens when the Rules require
a mathematical impossibility. The Rules also do not state whether or not the
rules of math take precedence over the Rules.
Regarding TRUE: The Rules define "CAN" as "Attempts to perform the described action
are successful." This does not describe applying a fine here, as there is no valid number of
Blots that I could be fined that would be permitted under Rule 2557. Thus any attempts to do so
would NOT be successful.
Regarding FALSE: I think this might be a valid outcome, but I also think that
the Rules explicitly state that the investigator CAN do so, and that should be
taken into account.
Regarding PARADOXICAL: I think this might be a valid outcome. The Rules state
that a person CAN do something that is mathematically impossible to do. That
sounds like a paradox to me :).
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 12:46 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I pledge, on penalty of a Class 0 Crime, to not send messages to public fora
for the next 24 hours.
