On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 11:56 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On 4/25/2020 8:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 3:55 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> R2478 says that the investigator CAN "conclude" the investigation by > >> calling shenanigans. I'd argue that the common definition of "conclude" > >> (supported by an ethical/good of the game desire to avoid double > jeopardy) > >> means you can't conclude the same thing twice. > >> > >> I think it's clear that if someone else points their finger, starting a > > different investigation, that would be separately resolvable? I can't > open > > the rules at the moment, so it's possible that there's an obvious bar I'm > > missing. > > > > There's no bar to that - I just didn't personally feel like raising the > issue in CFJ or asking a hypothetical, when the referee had opined within > the bounds of reason, and the standard for shenanigans is what the referee > "believed" was true (If it was a different standard I might have CFJ'd). > > Oh, I may see the confusion - I said initially there was "no way" to CFJ > the referee's finding, when what I really meant was something like there > was "no valid legal reason" (the finding having met the proper standard of > belief and all). > > -G. I hadn't thought about the fact that a ruling of SHENANIGANS could not be CFJ'd, so if another finger were pointed for this or another similar violation, I would impose a fine, just to ensure a CFJ could be called. I also looked at CFJ 3823 and it seems to be in line with what I was already thinking. I agree that it is distinct conduct, but I think that the fact that we ascertain whether it is occurring from the same conduct may make it the same for the purposes of the sentencing guidelines.
