I judge that CFJ 3648 is TRUE. **** 3648 called by G. 24 June 2018, assigned to D. Margaux 30 September 2018: "The fine levied on Corona for late Herald Tournament Regulations is unforgivable for the purposes of R2559."
*** Judge's arguments: The question presented is whether a fine imposed by summary judgement is ipso facto "unforgiveable" for purposes of R2559. Under R2559, an officer loses eir monthly salary if an "unforgiveable fine" was imposed on em for eir conduct in office during that month. Rule 2557 also provides that, in investigating a Pointed Finger, an investigator "CAN specify that the violation is forgivable." As can be seen from these Rules, it appears that "forgiveable" is a possible attribute of a violation and "unforgiveable" is a possible attribute of a fine. The Rules do not expressly define the relationship (if any) between "unforgiveable fines" and "forgivable violations." As a result, we may augment the interpretation with game custom, prior judgements, and common sense. Game custom establishes that if the investigator of a Pointed Finger announces that the violation is forgivable, then the resulting fine is deemed to be not unforgivable. In addition, game custom establishes that, if the investigator of a Pointed Finger does not specify whether the violation is forgiveable, then the resulting fine is considered to be unforgiveable. That result is consistent with common sense, and seems appropriate and in the best interests of the game. This case presents an added wrinkle: the Rules permit the Referee to levy a fine for a violation by summary judgement, but in that case the Rules do not establish any method for the Referee to specify whether the violation was forgiveable or, perhaps relatedly, whether the resulting fine was unforgiveable. In my view, this implies that the fine resulting from summary judgement is necessarily unforgiveable. When a fine is imposed by Pointed Finger, it is deemed unforgiveable unless the investigator affirmatively determines that the violation is forgiveable. That indicates that, by default, violations are considered to be not forgiveable and resulting fines are considered to be unforgiveable. There is no method for the Referee on summary judgement to determine a violation to be forgiveable, and, as a result, the default outcome is that the resulting fine is unforgiveable. The fine levied on Corona for late Herald Tournament Regulations was imposed by summary judgement and, as a result, is unforgivable for the purposes of R2559. JUDGED TRUE. *** 3648 caller G.'s evidence: Published by G. on 20 Jun 2018 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT): > I impose summary judgement as follows: I levy a fine of 2 Blots on > Corona for failure to propose a set of Birthday Regulations in a timely > fashion after June 1 (R2495). *** 3648 caller G.'s arguments: R2559 reads in part: > 2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or > more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were > levied on em for eir conduct in that office during that time, > the following assets are created in the possession of that > player: "Unforgivable" isn't directly defined in the Ruleset. The definition is by inference in R2557: > Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the > investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable, > specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology. which implies that violations that aren't forgivable are unforgivable. However, R2557 defines "forgivable" in the context of imposing justice as per an investigation of a finger-pointing. The fine in question was levied using R2479: > The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose > Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine > of up to 2 blots on em. which does not mention any notion of forgiveness. There are two reasonable readings, I'm not sure which is correct: 1. Since the fine isn't defined as forgivable, it's unforgivable. 2. Since the rule under which the fine was levied do not mention the concept, the fine is neither forgivable nor unforgivable. FWIW, I didn't think about it one way or the other when I imposed the fine, if I'd thought about it I would have (tried to) specify it as forgivable. After reading Rules a few more times, I think this is answered by this clause in R2479: > Summary Judgement is imposed on the > Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official > proceeding. I think the Finger -> Investigation -> Forgiveness is an "official proceeding", and since summary judgement is explicitly stated to be outside of that, any resulting penalties are neither forgivable or unforgivable.