On 8/10/19 2:47 PM, Nich Evans wrote:
On 8/9/19 9:58 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
[Please don't kill me for this one. I think this is a valid question.]
I CFJ: "The base value of the Crime of Endorsing Forgery is 2."
Evidence:
{
Excerpt from Rule 2202:
Such ratification or announcement of intent to ratify is the Class-8
Crime of Endorsing Forgery.
Excerpt from Rule 2557:
- 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:
{
Although Rule 2202 clearly intends to make the Crime of Endorsing
Forgery have a base value of 8, I don't believe its language actually
does so. The Rules do not describe the Crime of Endorsing Forgery as
a "Class N crime" (where N is some number), they instead describe it
as a "Class-8 Crime" (with the hyphen). I argue that this does not
fit the pattern specified by Rule 2557, so the base value takes on
its default of 2.
}
I don't think there's a lot of basis for this one. Punctuation marks
are generally considered not important in the rules when they
contradict common sense readings.
I'd also suggest not getting over-reliant on CFJs. They should be for
*disagreements* about meaning, not clarity. Ask what people think first,
and CFJ if people interpret it differently than you.
--
Nich Evans
