> On Oct 24, 2018, at 6:27 PM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> However, a
>>> player SHALL NOT make a accusation of which e believes the Defendant
>>> not to be guilty without explaining emself in the same message; to do so
>>> is the Class-5 Crime of Witch-Hunting.
>>
>> This is ambiguous—it could be read to say that the explanation is witch
>> hunting, which is clearly not intended. So I would write, “A player SHALL
>> not accuse a player unless e believes the Defendant to be guilty or
>> explains in the same message as the accusation what e believes regarding
>> the Defendant’s guilt; a player who violates that requirement commits the
>> Class 5 Crime of Witch Hunting.”
>>
> I think it’s clear, at least by analogy with the standard form of such
> statements. Does anyone else have an opinion?
To clarify my point, I don’t think anyone would actually misinterpret the
phrasing as initially drafted (unless they were trying to run some scam). The
sentence was gramatically ambiguous, but we do know what it means. Still, it’s
better to remove the ambiguity altogether (in my view).
>>> For the purposes of these definitions,
>>> failure to take a required action before the appropriate deadline
>> constitutes
>>> a violation occurring at the deadline to complete the action.
>>
>> We don’t define the term “violation”; I can see that being a problem like
>> the “crime” issue. Also, the time periods below are calculated based on the
>> commission of an “Act,” and this rule doesn’t set the time for when the
>> relevant “Act” occurs for a late action.
>>
>> So what if we defined the term ”Violation” to be “an act that contravenes
>> an obligation imposed by Rule, an act defined to be a crime by the Rules,
>> or a failure to take an action required by the Rules”, and then define
>> innocence and guilt to be related to whether a Violation was committed, and
>> set the time periods to run from the time of the Violation.
>
> I'll borrow your definition, although I still want it to be called the Act,
> because that’s shorter.
I would also supplement my definition to add “an act **or failure to act**
defined to be a crime by the Rules.”
>>> The correct verdict is the first appropriate listed verdict.
>>
>> If it is difficult to determine which not guilty verdict is appropriate,
>> we should give the Adjudicator the choice to deliver a later one that is
>> clearly applicable rather than an earlier one that is unclear. Perhaps we
>> could say: “Any verdict listed below, other than GUILTY/S, is considered
>> to be a NOT GUILTY verdict. The Adjudicator SHALL deliver the first-listed
>> verdict e believes to be appropriate. The Adjudicator MAY deliver a
>> later-listed verdict of NOT GUILTY if e believes that later-listed verdict
>> to be appropriate and the earlier-listed NOT GUILTY verdicts are either
>> believed to be inappropriate or of uncertain appropriateness.”
>
>
> I think the point of this system is to give simple, clear results. If the
> case is ambiguous, a CFJ should be called.
I agree that simple and clear results are what is desired. I just worry that
creating a strict hierarchy of different kinds of not guilty verdicts, that
must be resolved in a particular order, will actually create more difficulty
and confusion, and spawn a multitude of CFJs on questions that don’t
necessarily matter to the actual disposition of the case. Why not permit a
safety valve for the adjudicator to acquit on a different basis, instead of
CFJing whether an earlier ground for acquittal is also proper?
