Below are CFJs 4045, 4046, 4047, and 4048. I assign each one to Murphy.
=============================== CFJ 4045 ===============================
Juan, the Absurdor, violated rule 2683.
=============================== CFJ 4046 ===============================
4st violated rule 2683.
=============================== CFJ 4047 ===============================
Every player violated rule 2683.
=============================== CFJ 4048 ===============================
The ruleset violated 2683.
==========================================================================
Caller: 4st
Judge: Murphy
==========================================================================
History:
Called by 4st: 08 Jul 2023 02:27:21
Assigned to Murphy: [now]
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
Rule 2683 was violated, as the last time the boulder was pushed was June
23rd by 4st.
Rule 2683/0 (Power=0.5)
The Boulder
The Absurdor is an office.
The Boulder's Height is a singleton integer switch defaulting to
0, tracked by the Absurdor.
Each player CAN, once a week, by announcement, push the boulder.
When a player pushes the Boulder, its Height is increased by 1.
Players are ENCOURAGED to do so. The Boulder MUST be pushed at
least once a week.
If at any point the height of the Boulder is 100 or more, it is
set to 0.
Caller's Arguments:
Arguments JUAN: Juan, the Absurdor, has an implied responsibility to push
the boulder, as e has the office responsible for tracking it, and has the
power to push the boulder on any given week.
Arguments 4ST: 4st, as the last and only pusher of the boulder, should have
continued to push the boulder, as by volunteering the first time, has an
implied responsibility to continue to do it.
Arguments EVERYONE: As anyone CAN push the boulder, it is everyone's
implied responsibility, and so, everyone violated rule 2683, because
everyone has the responsibility to push the boulder.
Arguments RULESET: Alternatively, since there is no one assigned to the
responsibility specifically, the ruleset violated the rule, and thus, the
infraction has no infracter. (I believe this is the precedent, but it
doesn't hurt to check)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gratuitous Arguments by Janet:
Arguments for JUAN, 4ST, EVERYONE:
CFJ 3730 clearly suggests a judgement of FALSE.
Arguments for RULESET:
IRRELEVANT. No punishment can be imposed in any case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
I believe in this case it is the boulder that has violated
the rules, by not being pushed. (As far as I can tell, this viewpoint
is not inconsistent with CFJ 3730.) In CFJ 3141, the judge found that a
sentence fragment "judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial case"
meant that the judge would have violated a rule by being assigned (as
opposed to the person doing the assignment). This situation has
comparable wording.
Anyway, CFJ 3730 is a direct enough precedent that I think the first
three CFJs could appropriately be judged IRRELEVANT, on the basis that
they can be trivially determined from the outcome of another judicial
case; there doesn't seem to be anything different this time compared to
last time we tried this (something which IIRC was pointed out during
the voting period).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
(specific response to ais523's gratuitous arguments):
Even if the judge agrees with the principles and logic of CFJ 3730,
there's some rule text changes to consider. The judgement quotes a
clause of Rule 2531/4 in effect at the time of that judgement:
> Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:
> (reasons)
That text has been replaced with this in R2531/16:
> An infraction is automatically forgiven if:
> (reasons)
The "reasons" in R2531/4 mixed the concepts of "not a rules violation
based on facts" and "technically a rules violation but excused from
penalties" so it was the appropriate citation at the time; currently,
"not a rules violation based on facts" is a platonic effect of Rule
2478 and R2531/16 is only relevant for forgiving an established rules
violation. If the judge agrees with the overall logic of CFJ 3730, I
think this is a minor rules citation issue, but it's probably
different enough to reaffirm FALSE and cite R2478 as the new governing
rule, or do a little due diligence on whether the new rules text
functions as expected, rather than dismiss this as wholly irrelevant.
==========================================================================
