On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 6:04 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > Arguments: > A fine should be reduced to the degree the infraction was "minor, > accidental, and/or inconsequential". This violations, while not minor > or inconsequential, may well have been accidental given the newness of > the petition mechanism and the relative inactivity of the perps. > Furthermore, a fine should be increased to the degree the violation > was "willful, profitable, egregious, or an abuse of an official > position". This was none of those. Given the totality of the > circumstances, a fine of the maximum penalty is blatantly and > obviously unsuitable for the violation, so the fine fails by R2531(3). > Note that while the Sentencing Guidelines are not explicitly > referenced by R2531(3), they do represent the ruleset's official > guidance on what sort of sentences are correct. I'd contend that the > appropriate fine is 2 blots, though one could argue for 1. > I wasn't sure about this and I agree that it was on the harsh end, but I believe that the forgivability of the fines makes them balanced. > Furthermore, the fine is outside the sentencing guidelines in Rule > 2557, and the Referee CAN only exercise the Cold Hand of Justice to > levy a fine within those guidelines (note that while the relevant > guideline is a SHOULD, it's within the scope of the restrictions on > the CAN; I request that the judge rule on whether that makes it a > limitation on the CAN as I contend it does). > I don't believe that the fine is outside the sentencing guidelines because my interpretation is that they allow for a fine between 1 and 4 (twice the default base value of 2) blots for this crime. Could you explain why this is outside the allowable range because I don't read the rule that way?
