Dang, I wanted that to work :(.
Although this raises another question: since I pointed my finger at
myself specifically for the Class "I'm a string!" Crime of Oathbreaking,
but that's not the crime I'm guilty of, can the Referee impose CHoJ for
the Class 2 Crime of Oathbreaking, or would another finger point be needed?
Jason Cobb
On 7/12/19 2:06 AM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 5:56 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
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.
The rule says that N is 2 if the pledge doesn't state otherwise, but
it doesn't explicitly say what happens if the pledge does state
otherwise.
This is not *entirely* a triviality. It's clear that the rule intends
to respect the pledge's choice of class, but if it said so explicitly,
the exact wording might provide clues about what kinds of choices are
acceptable. For example, I tried to think of wording that would make
it explicit, and the first thing to come to mind was: "where N is the
value stated in the pledge, or 2 if the pledge does not state a
value". (Not the best drafting, but like I said, it was the first
thing to come to mind.) In that example, the use of the word "value"
would lend additional support to the argument that it must be a
number, since "value" is often, though not exclusively, used for
numbers.
In any case, the omission is enough of a crack to wedge Rule 217
factors into*, and "common sense" very strongly suggests that N is
expected to be a number. As such, I judge that it must be. It is
less clear what kinds of numbers are allowable values for N, but that
issue need not be decided in this case, since "I'm a string!" is
clearly not one.
CFJ 3752 is FALSE.
* Which is not to say that the omission is the *only* reason Rule 217
factors are applicable; the text is arguably "unclear" in any event.
But there is no need to decide that here either.
