On 4/9/2020 7:51 AM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> As Arbitor, I become the investigator for the finger pointing at Publius
>> Scribonius Scholasticus.
>>
>> Investigation Conclusion:
>>
>> As per R2478, part of the announcement specification for pointing a finger
>> is "citing an alleged violation of the rules by that person", so that
>> citation has to fit under the "clearly specifying" standard for
>> by-announcement actions (the citation is part of the action announcement).
>>
>>
> also doesnt your interpretation ,mean that the finger was never pointed at
> all
>
Yeah, I thought about that - I wouldn't be surprised if a CFJ found it was
all ineffective (and figured if it turned out to fail no harm done in
pretending to resolve it anyway). But you did allege a violation happened
("miscreant behavior"), and resolving a violation that isn't actually a
violation is anticipated and covered by R2531(2).
ITT in cases where the non-crime is less obvious (e.g. behavior that is
almost a crime but turns out not to be, due to a minor technicality) it's
cleaner to saw "ah, that didn't turn out to be a crime - Shenanigans or
INEFFECTIVE due to R2531(2)" then to say "it turns out that was never even
a finger-point, so it's all undone". Maybe I'm wrong there tho.
But the other part of this is Referee choice, and it might indeed be a bug
that you've pointed out here. I personally chose to resolve it this way,
but it's quite possible that a Referee could go on to look for other
crimes. Reading the Rules, you could allege that someone did X (where X
is an actual crime), and I can't see anything against the Referee going on
a fishing expedition and saying "forget about X, that someone did entirely
unrelated crime Y" and punish for that (as long as Y falls within the
14-day window and all the other criteria).
In other words, there's no explicit link between the "alleged crime" in
the finger point, and the "reason for the levy" in R2531. Maybe one could
be inferred in R2557 but I don't think it's explicit?
-G.
