A finger-pointing should be shenanigans if it happens 14 days after the breach. However, the way it's written, it's the final fine that's ineffective if it's levied after 14 days (R2531). That should be fixed I think - given that the referee has a week to respond to a finger-pointing, e can let it timeout if e doesn't want to blot it.
I don't like the option of "just card the offense" because it puts the referee's opinion at direct odds with a judge's opinion. In this case for example, I really believe it's Shenanigans (based on my arguments for that CFJ), so it's appropriate for me to call it. But if the CFJ found the reverse, I'd want to honor that. So if I'm forced to card before the CFJ is done, I either have to lie (and levy the fine when I don't believe it's appropriate just to keep the option open for the CFJ) or be truthful (and prevent justice from being served if the CFJ finds I'm wrong here). I'm not fond of those options. On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > So there's actually two limitations periods. The seven-day period for > CHoJ and the fourteen-day one for overall response and Summary > Judgement. The seven-day period should probably be tolled by pending > CFJ, but I'm not sure about tolling the fortnight period. I suppose > the fortnight period should be tolled if there is a Finger Pointed > _and_ a CFJ but not otherwise? But I still see no need for tolling > because it is simple to just card for the offense while the CFJ is > pending and then have that card have never happened due to the CFJ if > it comes out the other way. > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > > And, in case I still wasn't referee, I resolve this other finger-pointing > > as indicated below. > > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> Fair enough. (I think the proto is important in this case though - a > >> CFJ should stop the 14-day clock on punishment). > >> > >> Given that there has been no time in the recent past that I had sufficient > >> support to do the job in question within the time limit, my initial > >> attempt that failed was as good as any other attempt would have been. > >> > >> I find Shenanigans. > >> > >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > >> > That's not needed. The rules say punishment CAN only be imposed if a > >> > rule is broken so the Ref can simply impose punishment and then if the > >> > CFJ rules otherwise, the punishment never happened in the first place. > >> > Or not, if he so chooses. The Ref is entitled to rule finger-pointing > >> > as Shenanigans even when it is not Shenanigans if e believes sincerely > >> > there is no breach. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > There is a CFJ pending as to whether this is shenanigans or not. > >> > > > >> > > Proto: Add to the finger-pointing rule, a third option for the > >> > > referee: Impose justice, declare shenanigans, OR CFJ/point to an > >> > > existing CFJ. > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > >> > >> I point my finger at G. for failing to attempt to deregister each > >> > >> inactive player. I suppose that because this isn't officially related > >> > >> to the duties of the Referee, G must judge himself. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Aris Merchant > >> > >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > I intend, without 3 objections, to assign this CFJ to myself. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > -Aris > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Kerim Aydin > >> > >> > <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> [No coin needed, was planning to anyway. Here's a CFJ!] > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> I deregister every one of the following players with 3 Agoran > >> > >> >> consent: > >> > >> >> - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >> > >> >> - 天火狐 > >> > >> >> - Telnaior > >> > >> >> - omd (zombie) > >> > >> >> - o (zombie) > >> > >> >> - nichdel (zombie) > >> > >> >> - pokes (zombie) > >> > >> >> As the waiting period for Agoran consent has not passed following > >> > >> >> any > >> > >> >> announcement of intent, I fully believe the above actions fail. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> I free-CFJ on the following: In the first Eastman week of April > >> > >> >> 2018, > >> > >> >> G. attempted to deregister every player that did not sent a > >> > >> >> message to > >> > >> >> a public forum in the preceding month. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Caller's Arguments > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> This is to see if my failed attempts have satisfied the > >> > >> >> requirements of > >> > >> >> R2139. Further arguments in this conversation: > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> > >> >>> >> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> >>> >> > > >> > >> >>> >> > > I object to every one of the below intents. > >> > >> >>> >> > > >> > >> >>> >> > I'm wondering what is needed for you to be considered to > >> > >> >>> >> > have fulfilled > >> > >> >>> >> > the > >> > >> >>> >> > monthly requirement and whether your objections violate it. > >> > >> >>> >> > > >> > >> >>> >> > In the first Eastman week of every month the > >> > >> >>> >> > Registrar SHALL > >> > >> >>> >> > attempt to deregister every player that has not sent > >> > >> >>> >> > a message to > >> > >> >>> >> > a public forum in the preceding month. > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >>> >> I've long-wondered how requirements to do something match with > >> > >> >>> >> methods > >> > >> >>> >> that > >> > >> >>> >> require support/objections or "attempts" to do something. > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >>> >> I've wondered for example what what happen if I just never > >> > >> >>> >> followed > >> > >> >>> >> through > >> > >> >>> >> on a posted intent for such a SHALL and let it time out, given > >> > >> >>> >> that other > >> > >> >>> >> supporters could complete it I could argue "I attempted but no > >> > >> >>> >> one carried > >> > >> >>> >> through." > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >>> >> Or maybe, since the requirement is literally to "attempt" to > >> > >> >>> >> do it, if I > >> > >> >>> >> purposefully misspecify a parameter so the intent turns out to > >> > >> >>> >> be invalid, > >> > >> >>> >> I've still"attempted" it so satisfied the requirement. > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >>> >> Or maybe, since a dependent action doesn't "happen" until the > >> > >> >>> >> intent is > >> > >> >>> >> resolved, maybe "attempt" means that I'm required to say "I > >> > >> >>> >> hereby do X > >> > >> >>> >> with > >> > >> >>> >> 3 Support" even if I DON'T have enough support, or never > >> > >> >>> >> announced intent. > >> > >> >>> >> That's a literal "attempt to do X with 3 support" that then > >> > >> >>> >> happens to > >> > >> >>> >> succeed or fail depending on whether intent was announced and > >> > >> >>> >> got support. > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >>> >> I don't know the answer to any of these. But I'm willing to > >> > >> >>> >> bet that IF > >> > >> >>> >> I correctly announce intent, and IF I fully intend to carry > >> > >> >>> >> out the intent > >> > >> >>> >> if it gets the right support (though this can't be proven), > >> > >> >>> >> then a CFJ > >> > >> >>> >> would hold that I made "a good faith attempt" to do my > >> > >> >>> >> official duty even > >> > >> >>> >> if I objected to it personally. Maybe the judge would even set > >> > >> >>> >> a new > >> > >> >>> >> precedent distinguishing "clearly private actions" from > >> > >> >>> >> official duties > >> > >> >>> >> in adjudicating how much I can impede a process and have it > >> > >> >>> >> still count as > >> > >> >>> >> "an attempt". > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> From V.J. Rada > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > From V.J. Rada > >> > > >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
