The FOLLOWING JUDICIAL DECLARATIONS, associated with CFJ 2864 judgement,
should cause the List of Succession to converge on a single state
(the same state as if such declarations were wholly ineffective).
Therefore, ANY JUDGE who claims beyond this that the List of Succsssion
positions are unknown (without further evidence) has NO EXCUSE FOR
LACK OF KNOWLEDGE in violating truthiness.
I make the following Judicial declarations as judge of CFJ 2864:
Due to the recent alleged judicial declarations,
{ omd's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ G.'s position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ coppro's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Wooble's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Tiger's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Taral's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ ehird's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Sgeo's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Tanner L. Swett's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ ais523's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ woggle's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Murphy's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Yally's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
If the last one worked, this one works. If it didn't, this didn't.
Either way, the list has converged.
> ============== Criminal Case 2864 (Interest Index = 0) ===============
>
> The Pariah violated Power-1 Rule 2143 by inaccurately listing
> this proposal in eir Proposal Pool report.
>
> ========================================================================
Judgement for CFJ 2864
It's important to note that the Pariah Rule, 2312, ENCOURAGES truthful
NoVs to be brought against the Pariah, and ENCOURAGES penalties to
be enforced. However, it clearly DOES NOT encourage a GUILTY verdict
in places where NOT GUILTY is appropriate.
In this case, for a non-Pariah, the appropriate sentence would be
GUILTY/DISCHARGE: An Officer SHOULD know what eir report is supposed
to contain, so lack of knowledge is not a defense when the public
record for the report is easily researched. However, trivial mistakes
are worthy of discharge. (This should be compared to a report-error
based on a common misinterpretation, which would be NOT GUILTY as
reasonable research would not reveal it).
Still, I am encouraged to enforce penalties, not discharge. However, I
am not (by the letter of R2312) encouraged to apply Rests, but simply
"enforce penalties".
Therefore, I judge Pariah Tanner L. Swett GUILTY and sentence em to
APOLOGY with the following prescribed words:
Losing, Finalize, Serendipity, Happenstance, Focus,
Perjury, Hottentot, Salient, Justice, Projector.
-G.
