Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3462 assigned to Aris

[Aris Merchant]

On Friday, October 28, 2016, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, October 27, 2016, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
>>
>> Well, your mailer. From the message I quoted:
>>
>> > --94eb2c0869e0d06750053fbc59e5
>> > Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
>> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>> I’m assuming it’s GMail’s web UI being “helpful” - I only noticed it
>> because the type for those messages, and only those messages, was not what
>> I normally read in. Apparently your mailer likes 14.67pt Arial… On the
>> upside, your mailer does helpfully include a text/plain part, as well.
>>
>> I appear to be doing the same thing! I’ll have to take my mailer out back
>> and discipline it.
>>
>> Anyways, I don’t necessarily mind, but I was distracted by it and I
>> thought you might want to know it was happening.
>>
>> -o
>>
> Thanks. I'll see what I can do. Maybe if I save the file as plain text and
> then copy-paste it won't try to copy the formatting data, given that there
> won't be any. If that doesn't work I can try to mess around with the
> settings...
>
> -Aris
>
Didn't send to list.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3462 assigned to Aris

[ais523]

On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 20:37 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Judge’s arguments:
> For greater certainty, I hereby decree that any document(s) alleging to be
> produced by the ADoP since the start of this scam, and not published
> by the actual ADoP, aranea, is(are) null and void, and CANNOT
> self-ratify. This expressly includes reports, as well as any other
> game action restricted to the ADoP.

I'm not 100% sure you can do this like this. One of the main reasons
that documents purporting to be reports self-ratify is that it
naturally fixes things if we're mistaken as to who the officer is; it's
entirely intentional that reports published by the wrong player are
self-ratifying. As such, discovering that the wrong player published
the report doesn't halt self-ratification in its own right.

However, you can halt it pretty easily (as I saw G. did elsethread).
The way I'd do it would be to reply "CoE: You are not the ADoP",
because the authorship of the report is the mistake in it.

There's also possibly an argument that you could rule that the case
itself was a doubt on the report, but this isn't explicit in the
/statement/ of the case. I'm far from certain whether you can make the
case a doubt in the /judgement/; at least, I've never seen that before.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3462 assigned to Aris

[Aris Merchant]

Judge’s arguments:

Ok, I’m going to start with a brief summary. Aranea has been ADoP for a
long time. Recently eir report has been incorrect. Specifically, e has
reported the wrong date for a player's assumption of an office, a fairly
minor mistake. The correctness (or lack thereof) of the documents, authored
by aranea, which purport to be reports does not appear to be in question.

The primary issue here seems to be the question of whether a report has to
be entirely correct to be valid. Reading the mere text of the rules is
unhelpful, as it doesn't really speak one way or the other. The only clue
appears to be self ratification. Self-ratification (R2201/6) states that a
document purporting to be a report self-ratifies, if the rules say it does.
Other rules (R2162/6) state that reports of switches self-ratify. The only
way to block this ratification is a doubt, (explicit public challenge) made
within one week of publication, which this CFJ constitutes. For the record,
officeholder is a switch tracked by the ADoP (R1006/38). Whether changes in
that switch (also tracked by the ADoP) are self-ratifying is another
question, and I’m not going to answer it. Alexis seems not to think so and
no one seems to have challenged em on the issue, which means I’ll rule on
the actual arguments.

Alexis argues that in order to be valid a report must be wholly and
completely accurate. E cites as evidence for this the various instances in
which the rules use the phrasing “a document purporting to be a report”.
However, this merely implies that a document can claim to be a report
without being one, not that there is any mechanism for this to happen. I
find one record of a case on this, CFJ 2392, which ruled that deliberately
inaccurate reports were invalid. I respect that judgement on the grounds of
stare decisis, and it is affirmed. The rules may have changed since then,
but the principle stands. However, it doesn't really help that much in this
case, as it left the issue of accidentally inaccurate for a future CFJ
(guess that means me).

I’m going to get a bit sidetracked here. If alexis’s principle succeeded,
there is general agreement that eir scam still would have failed, as e
listed emself as ADoP. While it is theoretically possible that the  “When”
in rule 2160 means before, there is evidence against this. As shown by
aranea in eir arguments, the rules don’t seem to use “when” in this
fashion, and some parts of R2160 imply that it isn't intended to be
interpreted that way. Game practice and custom seem to use it as meaning
“after”. Certainly it doesn't mean “during”, as that would go against the
principle of isolation, and generally risk messing everything up. Since
game custom and practice, as well as the best interests of the game, show
that it should be interpreted as meaning “after”, that is how it is to be
interpreted. So ordered and all that. (I should mention that I’m a bit
biased, or perhaps illogical here. I tend to think of it as “whoever takes
the job gets the job” which suggest “after” over “before”.) (This may be a
bit beyond the scope of this CFJ, but I’m sick and tired of people using
that as an excuse to not decide something.)

However, eir principle was invalid. Game custom is pretty clear on this
matter. For an example look at CFJ 2877, where it was found that a report
was incorrect, suggesting that a report does not have to be completely
accurate. Anyone is free to publish a CoE, or to try to punish an officer
for violating R2143’s SHALL NOT. In the meantime, while there will never be
a bright line for this, the standard is that the purported report has to
exhibit gross sloppiness and negligence, equivalent in severity to lying in
the report or not publishing it. Aranea did not violate this standard, as
shown by the minor nature of this error, and the fact that nobody noticed
till now.

Having duly considered the arguments of all sides and etc. etc. etc., I
hereby judge this CFJ TRUE. For greater certainty, I hereby decree that any
document(s) alleging to be produced by the ADoP since the start of this
scam, and not published by the actual ADoP, aranea, is(are) null and void,
and CANNOT self-ratify. This expressly includes reports, as well as any
other game action restricted to the ADoP.


-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3462 assigned to Aris

[ais523]

On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 18:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> By the way, if you find areana failed in eir duty, it's ok to extend
> your 
> arguments to the further question of Alexis's scam versus my counter-
> scam.  While you can't opine officially, if your arguments are persuasive, 
> we've been known to accept "arguments beyond the specific brief" and not 
> call the follow-up question separately.  (of course someone may still call 
> a follow-on case if they want to, but just saying it's not frowned-upon to 
> exceed your brief on occasion in arguments and opine on such follow-up 
> questions, especially if speed is an issue).

IMO the only reason to call (inquiry) CFJs is for the judge's arguments
(and any other arguments that might be raised). The actual verdict
doesn't actually do anything, and thus is fairly arbitrary, whereas the
arguments influence the way players play in future.

As such, answering a different question in the arguments is both fairly
common, and fairly useful.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3462 assigned to Aris

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016, Aris Merchant wrote:
> (Blushes) Oops again. I checked the ADoP's report this time, honest, but I 
> think I miss-read it. Sorry. I'd thought it was...
> Someone who hadn't been that active lately. Sorry, if I'd known it was you I 
> just would have left it. Just curious, why didn't
> you assign it sooner? 
> -Aris

I hadn't had a little time to go back and look at the list of judges,
because some of them from the last round of assignments judged slowly 
(or didn't judge at all, I need to re-assign at least one).  When you 
directly expressed interest (and you don't have any conflict of interest 
that I can see), I knew I had a judge handy with an appreciation of the 
necessary speed :).

By the way, if you find areana failed in eir duty, it's ok to extend your 
arguments to the further question of Alexis's scam versus my counter-
scam.  While you can't opine officially, if your arguments are persuasive, 
we've been known to accept "arguments beyond the specific brief" and not 
call the follow-up question separately.  (of course someone may still call 
a follow-on case if they want to, but just saying it's not frowned-upon to 
exceed your brief on occasion in arguments and opine on such follow-up 
questions, especially if speed is an issue).

-G.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3462 assigned to Aris

[Aris Merchant]

(Blushes) Oops again. I checked the ADoP's report this time, honest, but I
think I miss-read it. Sorry. I'd thought it was... Someone who hadn't been
that active lately. Sorry, if I'd known it was you I just would have left
it. Just curious, why didn't you assign it sooner?

-Aris