On 2021-06-19 07:29, Rebecca Lee via agora-official wrote:
Telna pointed a finger at emself for Unjustified Gesticulation for eir
finger pointing that was later found shenanigans. Original point (found
shenanigans):
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-June/046723.html
Second point:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-June/046794.html
Telna did indeed commit unjustified gesticulation by pointing a finger
found to be Shenanigans. Because e did not point any other such fingers
earlier in the week, the crime is class 0. Rule 2557 allows me to issue a
Warning for class 0 crimes. Unfortunately, I cannot impose any blots
by the
Cold Hand of Justice under rule 2557 because I can impose a number of
blots that is at most twice the crime's class, which is still 0.
Clearly, Telna pointed this finger for personal gain of a justice
card. E
essentially admitted as such on discord. The element of profitability
makes
an upward variance appropriate (2557). I therefore intend, with 1.5
Agoran
consent (this is the procedure under a new proposal,
https://agoranomic.org/assessor/proposal/8560.txt) to Indict Telna,
levying
a fine of 2 blots.
Arguments Against Indictment:
(This used to be a defendant's right before apparently the proposal
simplified that out? Kinda weird, but I guess here we are anyway)
First of all, the alleged crime itself. Allow me to enter the Referee's
arguments for finding SHENANIGANS into evidence:
On 2021-06-17 13:56, Rebecca Lee via agora-official wrote:
> The rule makes clear that the publication of "all such information"
> that must be tracked by the Treasuror must be performed at least once
> per week. Trigon has not violated this rule for this Agoran week (I'm
> assuming Telnaior was referring to eir most recent report, which was
> published this week) until the week elapses without that information
> having been published. Trigon must, of course, publish this
> information before the end of the week (it would be best if e included
> this info in eir weekly report documents, which I have been informed e
> has never done). I find this finger pointing SHENANIGANS.
Please take note that, in making this conclusion, e chose to make an
assumption that would make it impossible for the investigation to end
any other way, specifically assuming that the alleged conduct was
confined solely to the current week - which has not concluded yet. This
goes against good-faith interpretation, especially as follow-up
investigations pointing specifically to past weeks rather than generally
as an ongoing matter were not also found shenanigans. I argue that this
attempt to levy a fine on me is due to an action that, while exercising
the highest reasonably possible standard of care (especially as a new
player), I could not have avoided. This goes against section (5) in Rule
2531 "Defendant's Rights". How can the alleged offence possibly be
considered criminal under these circumstances? An Indictment is clearly
not the solution here.
Secondly, allow me to draw your attention to Rule 2557 "Sentencing
Guidelines":
{
When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand
of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine of B on
the perp by announcement, within the following guidelines:
- B is at least 1 and at most twice the base value of the
violation.
- If the violation is described by the rules as a "Class N Crime"
(where N is a positive integer, or an expression that evaluates
to a positive integer), then N is the base value; otherwise the
base value is 2.
- The fine SHOULD be reduced to the degree that the violation is a
minor, accidental, and/or inconsequential infraction.
- The fine SHOULD be increased to the degree that the violation is
willful, profitable, egregious, or an abuse of an official
position.
}
This is the only part of the rule which speaks of increasing a fine
based on circumstances, suggesting that this is where the Referee found
cause to increase the fine e is intending to levy from 0 blots as
specified by the Rules to 2, a dramatic jump in magnitude. However, the
rule clearly states at the very beginning that this section only applies
to the Cold Hand of Justice, and furthermore explicitly excludes Class 0
Crimes from this analysis due to their extremely minor nature. It is
clear that the Referee electing to Indict for 2 blots is a dramatic
overreach, unjustified by the Rules, and should be considered outright
malfeasance with intent to inflict punitive measures upon Agora's newest
player. Can this truly be considered Agoran justice?
The defence takes particular issue with the magnitude of the fine being
considered. Were this a Class 1 Crime, the Referee would doubtless have
elected to impose the Cold Hand of Justice, increasing the fine by their
argument to the maximum permitted, which would be 2. However, this is
not a Class 1 Crime - this is a Class 0 Crime. The Rules explicitly
state that the offence alleged in this Indictment is less severe than
one where the maximum penalty is the same 2 blots being considered here.
How is this in any way a reasonable fine given the circumstance?
One final note regarding the alleged profitability of the offence,
disregarding for a moment how it was imposed upon em in the first
instance. Agora, this is not some grand scam intended to secure a win.
This matter is over a single Justice Card. Allow me to enter the
contract "Lee's Card Shop" into evidence:
{
Anyone may be a party to this. R. Lee is selling cards at the following
prices. This contract causes em to automatically transfer any card that
e owns of the specified type to the buyer if the buyer transfers R. Lee
the specified amount of coins.
[...]
Justice: 80 coins
}
80 coins is not a lot, and this is by the Referee's own valuation. It is
only barely more than 5 boatloads (currently valued at 70 coins) which
is the basic reward for judging a single CFJ or publishing a
low-complexity weekly report. This cannot be worth a full two blots
above and beyond what the Rules specify. Furthermore, this is a Justice
Card which the defendant was already on track to earning regardless of
this investigation. Truly, can this be considered anything other than an
egregious investigative overreach?
To summarise:
- The alleged crime under investigation is not criminal in nature.
- The Referee is relying upon a section of the rules that does not apply.
- The alleged crime is considered less severe by the Rules than one
which has a maximum punishment equal to the fine the Referee intends to
impose.
- The alleged profitability being used to justify this exorbitant fine
is miniscule at best.
Agora, it is now clear that the defendant in this case has done nothing
more than attempt to make the most of the circumstances that have been
inflicted upon em by the very same Referee who is now attempting to
severely blot em. How could anyone support such punitive measures
against a player who registered to join Agora less than a week ago? The
only reasonable measure here is to oppose this indictment and implore
the Referee to end this farce with a simple Warning.
