On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Ok, so the panel did say that the prior judge's ruling was "clearly
> wrong", which was too strong a phrasing in retrospect. The arguments
> used to support that statement indicated that the prior judge's
> arguments were "clearly wrong", not necessarily eir ruling.
Let me try this once more (humbly for the appeals' board consideration).
There are really three binary questions here as follows:
BobTHJ gave an (a) correct/incorrect judgement
for the (b) right/wrong reasons
in (c) good/bad faith.
All branches are:
Correct -> right -> good = INNOCENT (appropriate)
Correct -> wrong -> good = ? (EXCUSED or INNOCENT - CFJ 1871)
Incorrect -> right -> good = impossible/trivial
Incorrect -> wrong -> good = EXCUSED (CFJ 1804)
Correct -> right -> bad = INNOCENT
Correct -> wrong -> bad = ? (GUILTY or INNOCENT - CFJ 1871)
Incorrect -> right -> bad = impossible/trivial
Incorrect -> wrong -> bad = GUILTY
Now, the CFJ 1860 appeals court has stated that the arguments were wrong.
That leaves us with:
Correct -> wrong -> bad = ? (GUILTY or INNOCENT - CFJ 1871)
Incorrect -> wrong -> bad = GUILTY
Correct -> wrong -> good = ? (EXCUSED or INNOCENT - CFJ 1871)
Incorrect -> wrong -> good = EXCUSED (CFJ 1804)
Now here's where the standard of proof comes in. I argue, that the
arguments, even if wrong, were not *bad enough* to show bad intent beyond
a reasonable doubt (for that, see a certain case of iambic pentameter).
This is where those sniffing at bribery may differ: I say, if you want to
forbid bribery, make a Rule. The reasonable doubt standard is applying
common sense and game custom to a criminal matter where the rules are silent.
That leaves us with:
Correct -> wrong -> good = ? (EXCUSED or INNOCENT - CFJ 1871)
Incorrect -> wrong -> good = EXCUSED (CFJ 1804)
As long as CFJ 1860 is unjudged, the above cases can't be distinguished.
Perhaps SLIPPERY. But I went with something that assumes a TRUE judgement
in CFJ 1871 (that's the second bone of contention), which would lead to
EXCUSED in either of the above remaining situations.
-Goethe
