Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2765
============== Criminal Case 2765 (Interest Index = 0) ===============
coppro violated Rule 1922, a power-1 Rule, by failing to award
me the Patent Title Three Months Long Service as soon as
possible after I had continuously held the office for three
months.
========================================================================
Caller: Yally
Barred: coppro
Judge: G.
Judgement: GUILTY/FINE
Appeal: 2765a
Decision: REMAND
Judge: G.
Judgement:
========================================================================
History:
Called by Yally: 23 Feb 2010 01:02:59 GMT
Defendant coppro informed: 23 Feb 2010 01:02:59 GMT
Assigned to G.: 27 Feb 2010 16:58:52 GMT
Judged GUILTY/FINE by G.: 10 Mar 2010 18:40:26 GMT
Appealed by coppro: 10 Mar 2010 23:17:07 GMT
Appeal 2765a: 10 Mar 2010 23:17:07 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 17 Mar 2010 23:37:18 GMT
Remanded to G.: 17 Mar 2010 23:37:18 GMT
========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
Rule 1922 (Defined Regular Patent Titles):
(c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine
Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be
awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a
particular Office continuously for the specified duration.
Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.
Rule 1023 (Common Definitions):
(a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible"
mean "within seven days". A requirement to perform an
action at an exact instant (e.g. "when X, Y SHALL Z"), but
not "in the same message", is instead interpreted as a
requirement to perform that action in a timely fashion after
that instant.
========================================================================
Judge G.'s Arguments:
This is straightforward GUILTY - 1 Rest. However, I'll mention
that it is Rude on behalf of the caller; while the Officer is
required to track it (and thus can't escape responsibility), it
is much more reasonable to remind officers of automatically-
triggered events with long fuses before dinging em. Also, This
Judge remonstrates the caller for bothering to call a criminal
case rather than letting it go as an NoV. I think the 1-Rest
fine is the lightest wrist-slap short of discharge; in the
current economy it's easier to clear a rest than write an
apology. -G.
========================================================================
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2765a
================= Appeal 2765a (Interest Index = 0) ==================
Panelist: Murphy
Decision: OVERRULE/NOT GUILTY
Panelist: comex
Decision: REMAND
Panelist: woggle
Decision: REMAND
========================================================================
History:
Appeal initiated: 10 Mar 2010 23:17:07 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist): 10 Mar 2010 23:37:18 GMT
Assigned to comex (panelist): 10 Mar 2010 23:37:18 GMT
Assigned to woggle (panelist): 10 Mar 2010 23:37:18 GMT
Murphy moves to OVERRULE/NOT GUILTY: 12 Mar 2010 18:36:06 GMT
woggle moves to REMAND: 15 Mar 2010 21:22:34 GMT
comex moves to REMAND: 17 Mar 2010 23:37:18 GMT
Final decision (REMAND): 17 Mar 2010 23:37:18 GMT
========================================================================
Appellant coppro's Arguments:
Although I do not fault the judge for this, having just noticed it
myself, I appeal the question of culpability for this case as I did not
breach rule 1922, which imposes no timing requirement on the award.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
I opine REMAND.
Rule 1922 does not directly require the award to be made ASAP, nor at
an exact instant (triggering Rule 1023), but Rule 649 does say
A person specifically authorized by the rules to award (revoke)
a Patent Title SHALL do so as soon as possible after the
conditions authorizing em to do so are announced, ...
Yally reminded coppro of the duty in a-d on Feb 7, and in a-b on Feb 23
when e initiated CFJ 2765; coppro sent something else to a-d on Feb 8,
so e was presumably reading it on Feb 7. coppro's own IADoP reports
may also have triggered Rule 649. I don't remember any other
announcements on the subject during the relevant time period.
I ask the judge to consider (1) whether the IADoP reports triggered
Rule 649 and, if so, (2) what penalty is appropriate in light of
Yally's request in a-d.
========================================================================
Panelist Murphy's Arguments:
coppro wrote:
> On 03/11/2010 09:14 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I ask the judge to consider (1) whether the IADoP reports triggered
>> Rule 649 and, if so, (2) what penalty is appropriate in light of
>> Yally's request in a-d.
>
> GUILTY is inappropriate if I violated 649 but not 1922, as 1922 is the
> specified rule.
I change my opinion to OVERRULE with a replacement judgement of
NOT GUILTY.
========================================================================
Panelist woggle's Arguments:
I opine REMAND. The caller appears to be arguing that R1922's text
requires the awarding to be done at the instant the service requirement
is met and that R1023 turns that into a 7-day timelimit. The prior judge
should address whether it is appropriate to interpret R1922 in this manner:
- Does R1922's text ("to be awarded ... to any player who has held a
particular Office continuously for the specified duration") specify an
instant some action must be performed?
- Does R649's requirement to award ASAP after announcement of conditions
take precedence over any requirement R1922 might impose?
========================================================================
Panelist comex's Arguments:
[no opinion given]
========================================================================
