[This is orthogonal to the "alternative" CFJ system but is something that
seemed interesting when I was thinking about it].
I submit the following two linked CFJs:
1. Delivering a CFJ judgement that doesn't accord with the first
paragraph of R217 is a rules violation.
2. Delivering a CFJ judgement that is not "appropriate" as defined in
R591 is a rules violation.
Arguments
First, I think it's a very slippery slope to suggest punishing judges for
judgements, at least for the vast majority of disagreements - I'm not at
all sure if judgements, even bad faith ones, should be penalized at all.
But I want to determine if submitting "bad" judgements (for certain values
of "bad") is actually a violation of any rule, just so we know.
For the first CFJ, R217 reads in part:
> When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
> takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
> unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past
> judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.
Note that this is imperative. It could/should be read "the text of the
rules SHALL take precedence" and "it SHALL be augmented by game custom,
common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the bests interests of
the game" without changing meaning (the imperative reads very much as a
SHALL, not a SHOULD). CFJs are clearly the rules-recognized means for
"interpreting and applying" rules. So failure to "interpret and apply"
rules via a CFJ in accordance with this paragraph would violate this rule.
For the second CFJ, R591 defines circumstances under which different
judgements are "appropriate". By inference, any judgements that don't fit
the criteria are "inappropriate". By dictionary definition,
"inappropriate" means "not suitable or proper in the circumstances" and
the example sentence given by google is actually "there are penalties for
inappropriate behavior" which implies that it means a rules violation.
(Though unlike the first, imperative-tense CFJ, "inappropriate" is weaker
than e.g. "invalid" so this maybe governed by the equivalent to a SHOULD,
not a SHALL).
For both CFJs, there's the possibility that a bad faith judgement also
violates R101's "Please treat Agora Right Good Forever" but I think that's
much more of a stretch.
Evidence:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 217/12 (Power=3)
Interpreting the Rules
When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past
judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.
Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about
rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it
is true. Definitions in lower-powered Rules do not overrule
common-sense interpretations or common definitions of terms in
higher-powered rules, but may constructively make reasonable
clarifications to those definitions. For this purpose, a
clarification is reasonable if and only if it adds detail without
changing the underlying general meaning of the term and without
causing the higher powered rule to be read in a way inconsistent
with its text.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that would
(1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve
matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the
controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a person from
causing formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that
e should be punished, is wholly void and without effect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 591/49 (Power=1.7)
Delivering Judgements
When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN assign
a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so in a
timely fashion after this becomes possible.
The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on
the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was
initiated, not taking into account any events since that time:
* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
logically false.
* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
logically true.
* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is
not relevant to the game or is an overly hypothetical
extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions that don't
actually exist, or if it can be trivially determined from the
outcome of another (possibly still undecided) judicial case that
was not itself judged IRRELEVANT.
* INSUFFICIENT, appropriate if the statement does not come
with supporting arguments or evidence, and the judge feels as if
an undue burden is being placed on em by the lack of arguments
and evidence. A CFJ judged as INSUFFICIENT SHOULD be submitted
again with sufficient arguments/evidence.
* DISMISS, appropriate if the statement is malformed, undecidable,
if insufficient information exists to make a judgement with
reasonable effort, or the statement is otherwise not able to be
answered with another valid judgement. DISMISS is not
appropriate if PARADOXICAL is appropriate.
* PARADOXICAL, appropriate if the statement is logically
undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other irresovable
logical situation. PARADOXICAL is not appropriate if IRRELEVANT
is appropriate, nor is it appropriate if the undecidability
arises from the case itself or in reference to it.
If the judge of an open CFJ has not violated a time limit for
assigning it a judgement, and has not previously filed a motion to
either extend or reconsider the case, e CAN file a motion to
extend the case by announcement. Doing so extends eir judgement
deadline for that case by one week. In doing so, e SHOULD include
a (nonbinding) draft or outline of eir current thoughts on the
case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
