CALL FOR CRIMINAL JUDGEMENT ARCHIVE (151-160)

Call For Criminal Judgement 151 - Tue 27 Jan 1998 09:33
Subject: Being Annoying
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
Judge: Goldenmean (selected January 27, 1998, 9:30 a.m.)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by Slakko
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by Slakko
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Slakko has committed the crime of being annoying on the 26th of January.

On January 26th a CFJ was distributed, with Slakko as the initiator claiming that "at least the standard harfer fee" referred to the trinket of that name, not the amount of money. From this CFJ it is clear that Slakko is attempting to alter the meaning of the phrase "at least the standard harfer fee" and so he has been annoying as per rule 721.

Transference of A$25 to The Gingham Wearer to cover court costs, and a gaol sentence of 1 day.

Rule 721 states:

Exploiting lexical equivalence to alter, or attempt to alter, the interpretation of a word or phrase in any Ackanomic document, [in the judgement of a judge], is Annoying.

While Slakko is correct when e states that e created eir trinket before the rule creating the standard harfer fee came into existence, e did not create it before the proposal concerning the standard harfer fee came into existence. Proposal 2557 came into existence on Jan 2, 1998 and Slakko created the trinket "at least the standard Harfer Fee" on Jan 8,1998. Proposal 2557

is an Ackanomic document, therefore Slakko is guilty of the crime of being annoying.

Transference of A$25 to The Gingham Wearer to cover court costs and 1 day in gaol.

I admit I committed the crime. I deny I committed it on the 26th of January. By the rules, this CFCJ may only be found true if it is found that I committed the crime in question _on_the_date_in_question. The first round judge made no mention of the date, which was the crux of my original defence.

The appealer's argument is that his crime (which he freely admits to) was committed only in the process of creating the trinket, and not by submitting a CFJ on the matter.

It is a valid point that, if you take it as a given that the trinket exists, there should be a CFJ issued to determine its ramifications. This act, in and of itself, should be considered innocuous. However, it is also significant that a CFJ is an almost certainly necessary step for this trinket creation to successfully make use of Malenkai's Loophole.

The trinket has been in existence for weeks. During that time, Slakko has had ample opportunity to destroy it, or relinquish its possession so that it could be destroyed. He has given no indication that he intends to do either of these things. The Court can only conclude that he intends to pursue his Annoying exploitation of lexical equivalence, even in full knowledge (by his own admission) of the criminal nature of his actions.

The Court feels that, even if one decides to give Slakko the benefit of the doubt and not consider the CFJ submission as part of his criminal act, Slakko was still committing his Crime by choosing not to destroy his trinket. His Crime is not localized to a single day; indeed, Slakko has been continuously in the process of committing this Crime since the Trinket was created. One could argue that any day during the existence of this Trinket would be sufficient to identify the precise Crime (which is the main purpose served by the requirement of a date in the CFCJ's statement). Attempting to select one particular action involved, and stating that that was the only point in time when a crime was being committed, strikes the Court as needless sophistry.

The appealer is penalized 15 points.

Transference of A$25 to The Gingham Wearer to cover court costs and 1 day in gaol.

The Court was mistaken in claiming I was in possession of the Trinket in Question on the date in question. I had relinquished the trinket, as evidenced by a message, available in the main ackanomic list logs, dated 24 Jan 1998 17:52:11 GMT, gifting it to SPAM. As a result, I could no longer be annoying from that date forward according to the rest of the reasoning of the Justices.

I note that the reason the Justices were probably mistaken is that the P/E page had not been corrected, and both SPAM and myself were listed as being owners of the trinket.

If I should be unfortunate enough as to have this appeal turned down as well, I will rest secure in the knowledge that The Caped Crusader should go after all members of Vulcan for their continued possession of the Trinket called "Parka" - clearly an attempt to exploit Lexical Equivalence and alter the meaning of Beldin's Pants.

It appears that the Court was in possession of incorrect information at the time that it previously ruled on CFCJ 151. Slakko was not in possession of the offending trinket at the time, and thus it is not fair to assume that he would still have been able to have it destroyed.

As stated previously, Slakko is clearly guilty of the Crime of Being Annoying. The question is whether he did anything on the given date of January 26th to contribute to that crime. The CFJ submission, the Court feels, clearly cannot be so designated. Given the trinket's existence, a CFJ is a necessary step if there is any debate regarding its effect.

The Court is therefore overturning its original decision. Regardless of the defendant's guilt or innocence, he was not guilty of the Crime of being Annoying on the date in question.

Call For Criminal Judgement 152 - Tue 27 Jan 1998 09:35
Subject: Zuriti'ili
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected January 27, 1998, 9:30 a.m.) (declined)
2nd Judge: Fortunato (selected January 28, 1998, 11:45 a.m.)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

K 2 has committed the crime of Zuriti'ili on January 25th.

I think that too much anti voting should constitute Zuriti'ili. It's starting to annoy me.

Deduction of 50 points. This is probably less than e's gained from anti-voting but seems about right.

Though I should probably judge this INVALID, I instead decided to ignore the wise words of my contemporaries, and instead study ancient tomes and great works of prophecy to determine whether the heinous crime of Zuriti'ili actually has anything to do with anti-voting or not. Imagine my astonishment when, while leafing through a newly released pamphlet on the dangers of modern society, I stumbled upon The Answer. The sentence read (loosely interpreted) 'while excessive anti-voting (obviously) has nothing to do with Zuriti'ili, a standard pattern of anti-voting has everything to do with it'. The pamphlet contained no other references, and neither did any other work I studied.
Therefore, I add my submission to the Zuriti'ili guidelines:

"It is possible for an act of Zuriti'ili to involve anti-voting in a certain pattern, but that pattern is unknown."

Call For Criminal Judgement 153 - Tue 27 Jan 1998 15:25
Subject: Being Annoying
Initiator: else...if
Judge: /dev/joe (selected January 27, 1998, 3:30 p.m.)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Rex Mundi has commited the crime of being annoying on 1/24/98.

Being annoying is a crime by rule 721. By attempting to pay the organization standard harfer fee, instead of paying the amount of the standard harfer fee, he exploited lexical equivalence.

Harsh! Two days in gaol, a 15 line apology, and a A$50 fine.

I agree with the initiator's reasoning. The "standard Harfer Fee" in R 1003 clearly refers to the standard Harfer Fee defined in R505, as part of the same proposal. When Rex Mundi created The Moral Kiosk, he attempted to exploit the lexical equivalence of the org and the term in R505. However, this was at Sat, 24 Jan 1998 02:48:39 -0000, which is Jan 23, 21:48 -0500 Acka Time, so it did not occur on the date listed in the CFCJ statement. Furthermore, I note that the creation of the organization named "the standard Harfer Fee" by Rex Mundi at Fri, 2 Jan 1998 21:11:58 -0000 is another incidence of Being Annoying, on that date. This organization existed when R505 came to have its current text, so at that time, when "the standard Harfer Fee" began to be "A$25", the organization must have been transformed into A$25, which, being unowned, was transferred to the treasury. The Financier should check how this interacts with the rule regarding the total number of A$; possibly that A$25 was taken from the treasury when the org was transformed into it, and immediately returned.

I looked through other messages and I could not find any incidence of Rex Mundi Being Annoying on January 24, 1998.

Call For Criminal Judgement 154 - Wed 28 Jan 1998 10:12
Subject: Being Annoying Again
Initiator: else..if
Judge: Slagothor (selected January 28, 1998, 10:15 a.m.)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by else...if
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Rex Mundi has commited the crime of being annoying on 1/23/98.

Being annoying is a crime by rule 721. By attempting to pay the organization standard harfer fee, instead of paying the amount of the standard harfer fee, he exploited lexical equivalence. (This is all your fault Slakko.)

Harsh! Two days in gaol, a 15 line apology, and a A$50 fine.

It seems, in light of Goldenmean's verdict on the earlier CFCJ against Slakko, that this one must also be judged TRUE. Exploiting lexical equivalence is definitely a Crime, according to the Rules. (For the purposes of this CFCJ I am considering '1/23/98' to be an unambiguous misspelling of whatever date the events in question actually did take place on.)

I do feel, however, that the spate of CFCJ's that may result from Rule 721 could be far more Annoying than the Annoyingness itself. I chose not to have Rex Mundi cover else...if's court costs because of this, and would encourage future judges of this Crime to do likewise to discourage players from convicting another player of being Annoying unless e was REALLY Annoying. Thanks, I'll step down off my soapbox now.

A 5-line public Apology, and a slap on the wrist.

Rex Mundi was given a slap on the wrist punishment (literally). We should stamp out Malenkai's Loophole now with some serious punishments before the problems gets worse. Beyond that, Rex Mundi's "apology" showed that he was not really repentant.

The Court notes that one of the reasons that "exploitation of lexical equivalence" is considered to be Annoying is for the extra effort it so frequently requires of those who must track the game state. The Court therefore feels that the best punishment in this case would be one that adds the least amount to their existing workload - namely, to uphold the original penalty.

This Court would also like to comment that it applies a different standard to appeals of CFCJ penalties than it does to other CFJ and CFCJ appeals. The Court considers its ability to alter sentences to be a check on abuse of the CFCJ system, and will not alter sentences unless it decides that an abuse has occured.

The appealer is penalized 15 points.

An APOLOGY of 5 or more lines.

Call For Criminal Judgement 155 - Sun 8 Feb 1998 16:55
Subject: Zuriti'ili
Initiator: Slagothor
Judge: Rex Mundi (selected February 9, 1998, 11:50 a.m.)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by The Gingham Wearer
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The Gingham Wearer committed the Crime of Zuriti'ili on Sunday, February 8, 1998, 14:11 EST.

The Gingham Wearer's (hereafter TGW) submission of Proposal 2704, "Isn't it just a bit contrived?", constitutes a comission of Zuriti'ili.

[ This is basically just to prove that Zuriti'ili isn't contrived or otherwise obsolete; that the ambiguity still allows most any action to constitute this Crime. Plus, as TGW mentioned, it's been all quiet on the Zuriti'ili front, besides K 2's aborted attempt, for a while, and I thought I'd spice things up a bit.
Not that this doesn't mean that the crime, and therefore the criminal, is/are not horrific, and that I wouldn't like to see TGW's plaid-clad butt behind bars. :-) ]

The Guidelines for Zuriti'ili are well established, and I will show how TGW satisfied each condition:

1. At least once in the history of Ackanomic, a player has committed Zuriti'ili.

We know this is true; /dev/joe was convicted of this heinous crime in CFCJ 137.

2. Zuriti'ili may be related to one or more entities that are owned.

The key word in this clause is 'may'; Zuriti'ili is not necessarily related to ownable entities. This instance, as will be shown in the next Guideline, is not.

3. Any action involving a prime number of named, ownable entities is not Zuriti'ili.

The action of submitting Proposal 2704 involved no named, ownable entities. Zero is not a prime number.

4. Zuriti'ili is never committed simulataneously with another crime.

If it can be shown that another player committed a Crime at the exact moment that TGW submitted Proposal 2704, or that e committed another, different Crime with its submission, then I will apologise to em profusely for this slander. However, it would be nearly impossible to show that the commission of the other Crime coincided exactly, to the nearest IAoT, with TGW's commission of Zuriti'ili. Therefore, this Guideline can be shown to be true.

5. The number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed, at any given point in time, is a prime number.

This is the crux of TGW's argument in Proposal 2704; that because of this, Zuriti'ili would have to be committed two or more times simultaneously (once the total number of commissions was past three) to fulfil this condition. This is certainly true, but it does not show that the Guidelines for Zuriti'ili are contrived. As breadbox so eloquently pointed out, nowhere in the guidelines is it claimed that Zuriti'ili must be committed by Ackanomic players. It could trivially be the case that enough commissions of Zuriti'ili in Real Life coincided with TGW's commission to raise the total number of commissions to a prime number.

Alternately, if that argument fails, it must be the case that enough other Ackanomic players simultaneously committed Zuriti'ili to make the total, again, a prime number. The problem was simply that, due to the ambiguity of the Guidelines, no one noticed and the criminals were not convicted. [ Note that this shows the opposite of what TGW was trying to prove: the Guidelines are so open for interpretation that Zuriti'ili may be committed many times simultaneously by a large number of players and most of these commissions will go unnoticed. ]

For those who might argue that simultaneous commissions of Zuriti'ili would violate the fourth Guideline, I would say that "another Crime" in Guideline 4 implies a different Crime. Zuriti'ili can be committed simultaneously with Zuriti'ili (indeed, must be) but not with any other Crime.

6. The Ackaphysicist has committed, or will commit, this crime at least once.

This is, again, trivially true. Either the Ackaphysicist has committed the Crime and not been convicted, or e has yet to commit it.

7. No one who is not a member of an Organization can commit Zuriti'ili.

TGW is a member of Klingon.

8. Zuriti'ili may only be committed by the Speaker if e publicly announces the number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed in the past and the date and time.

TGW is not the Speaker.

The last Guideline, which was introduced, I believe, by Fortunato, has not yet been appended to the list of Guidelines on the Web page, but I will prove TGW's compliance with it nonetheless. As best I can remember:

9. Excessive anti-voting does not constitute Zuriti'ili. However, a specific pattern of anti-voting may constitute Zuriti'ili.

TGW has certainly anti-voted in a specific pattern, even if that pattern is hardly at all.

I have shown that TGW complied with each and every Zuriti'ili guideline with eir submission of Proposal 2704. Now, I call upon the judge of this CFCJ to be as harsh and unmerciful as possible in eir penalty to this malicious, malevolent, and just plain _mal_ (if you'll excuse my French) criminal.

Unite, Ackans, and put The Gingham Wearer, menace to society and enemy of all right-thinking folk, behind bars! Why, e even stated publicly that the Earth is not flat!
We cannot tolerate this heinous criminal any longer! We must not --

Hey! Where are you going?

A SENTENCE of at least 5 days in Gaol.
A PUBLIC APOLOGY of at least 15 lines, each of which contains at least 72 characters which form valid, unambiguous English or Ackanomic words.
[ Rex Mundi's legacy to Ackanomic -- the carefully conditional Apology :-) ]
The TRANSFERENCE of eir Otzma Card Scientist for a Day to the initiator of the CFCJ to cover emotional damages.
[ Translation: Just because I can. ]

I concur with the initiator's reasoning.

Guideline: Most instances on Zuriti'ili go undetected.

A public apology of 5 or more lines, and a transfer of 5 A$ to rico.

Firstly I note that this might actually be invalid.

From rule 710:

3) Its "statement" shall be "X committed the Crime of Y on Z", where X is replaced with the name of a registered player, Y is replaced by the name of a Crime as defined in the current ruleset, and Z is replaced by a date earlier than the current date.

Compare this with the original form in which the CFCJ was submitted:

"The Gingham Wearer committed the Crime of Zuriti'ili on Sunday, February 8, 1998, 14:11 EST."

Sunday, February 8, 1998, 14:11 EST doesn't look like a date to me, more like a date and a time. I'm not going to dwell on this but it is something the supreme court might want to consider.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure the penalty is invalid. AFAIK there are no current players with the Ackanomic name of Rico.

Nextly, I point out that just having all the guidelines apply to you does not necessarily mean you have committed Zuriti'ili.

Nextly, with the lexical equivalence thing, it's quite likely that someone was being annoying at exactly the same time which would make this false, according to guideline 4.

Lastly, I point out two of the Zuriti'ili guidelines:

4. Zuriti'ili is never committed simultaneously with another crime.

5. The number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed, at any given point in time, is a prime number.

For five to be true, at least one other instance of Zuriti'ili must have been committed at *exactly* the same time. I say that this is not possible. First, I doubt that it is possible for any two things to happen simultaneously. Second, how can Zuriti'ili be committed simultaneously with itself if it can't be committed simultaneously with another crime? I say it can't, which would mean that this, and all future Zuriti'ili CFCJs should be judged false (unless of course my proposal passes to modify Zuriti'ili).

To answer the appealer's arguments in order:

Firstly, the terms "date" and "time" are often used to refer to both a date and a time, i.e., a full specification of a moment. The Court believes that this is well within standard English usage and is not enough reason to invalidate the CFCJ.

Secondly, the specification of the player in the penalty is unfortunate, but is, again, certainly no reason to consider the CFCJ invalid (especially since the Court will be supplying the actual penalty).

The third point is certainly true, but is of little point. The original judge has determined that Zuriti'ili was committed; the fact that most of the reasoning is devoted to showing only that it was possible is hardly evidence against the judgement.

Fourthly, the Court believes that the proper interpretation of the guideline in question ("Zuriti'ili is never committed simulataneously with another crime") is that no person commits Zuriti'ili while in the process of committing another crime. Surely the appealer would not have us believe that Zuriti'ili is only committed when no one, anywhere, is committing any other crimes.

Finally, it is possible for more than one person to commit a crime due to a single event, thus making it possible for more than one act of Zuriti'ili to be committed simultaneously. For example, consider CFCJs 142 and 144, which convicted /dev/joe and Vynd of Zuriti'ili for a the actions of an Organization.

As the appealer's arguments are all attempts to prove the impossibility of Zuriti'ili being committed, and no argument is offered in favor of his own innocence, the Court sees no other reason to question the original judge's decision.

The appealer is penalized 20 points.

A PUBLIC APOLOGY of five or more lines.
A TRANSFERENCE of A$5 to Hubert.

Call For Criminal Judgement 156 - Sun 8 Feb 1998 10:06
Subject: Game Misconduct
Initiator: Alfvaen
Judge: rufus (selected February 9, 1998, 11:55 a.m.)
Judgement: FALSE

Statment:

K 2 committed the Crime of Game Misconduct on January 17, 1998.

At Sat, 17 Jan 1998 23:57:59 -0500 (which is, barely, on January 17), K 2 posted a list of words containing "triva" between Alfvaen's challenge that this string of letters did not occur in any word in the Official Dictionary, and The Gingham Wearer's response. This is an obvious case of interference with the play of the subgame, since The Gingham Wearer should not have been able to consult the Official Dictionary, however indirectly, and yet ended up unsuspectingly reading it before e could avoid it.

But that's really beside the point. I think few people would disagree that K 2 would definitely be guilty of the Crime of Game Misconduct, except that Rule 1205, which details it, was only enacted on January 26th. This CFCJ is testing the waters to see if an action can become retroactively illegal or not. If it is possible, then obviously it should be fixed.

A PUBLIC APOLOGY of 1 line.

very little. On 17 January, Game Misconduct was not a crime. So K 2 could not have commited it then.

Call For Criminal Judgement 157 - Mon 30 Mar 1998 23:53 EST
Subject: Gumball
Initiator: K 2
Judge: Illusion (selected March 31, 1998 15:29) (declined)
2nd Judge: Guy Fawkes (selected March 31, 1998 17:36)
Judgement: INVALID
Appealed by The Gingham Wearer
Judgement:

Statment:

Slakko committed the Crime of Blatant Disregard on 26th of March 1998.

On the 26th of March Slakko was seen attempting to chew The Gumball:

"Today is Thursday, the 26th day of March, the fourth Thursday in the month, and I am chewing the Gumball. It has a hint of a Blue Lagoon in the taste this week - probably a continuation of the cocktail party I went to last night."

The venerable rule 903 is emphatic on when the moist chewyness of the gumball may be sampled:
"the gumball"[sic] ... "can be chewed only on" ... "the second and fourth Wednesdays and the first and third Thursdays of each calendar month."

The heinous criminal not only puckered up and commenced chewing on the _fouth_ Thursday, but went as far as to flaunt the fact in the faces of all law abiding Ackan citizens.

A vile criminal act if ever there was one, but of what type? A player is guilty of Blatant Disregard according to rule 701, if e "breaks" the rules. In this instance if a mistimed mastication is not breaking, what is? (unless of course 'breaking' is a "Weasel Word" ); Clearly a case of Blatant Disregard for the cherished rules of Acka.

One four line apology to The Gumball, once a day, for a week and an injunction on further chewings for a month.

Rule 710 regulate's the submission of CFCJ's. In particular, its says:

> 5) It shall include a "suggested penalty" section, which is a
> recommended penalty to be imposed on Player X, should a verdict of TRUE
> be reached.  More than one class of penalty may be recommended. The
> valid classes of penalties are: 
> [penalties ensue:]

An injuction against further chewing is not among the valid suggested penalties (although it probably should be), and so this is not a valid CFCJ. The Judge finds this CFCJ INVALID.

CFCJ 155 established the game custom that an invalid suggested penalty does not invalidate a CFCJ. I shall quote from the Supreme Court's (as was, i.e. breadbox and ThinMan) reasoning:

"Secondly, the specification of the player in the penalty is unfortunate, but is, again, certainly no reason to consider the CFCJ invalid (especially since the Court will be supplying the actual penalty)."

This is also too interesting to me to see it judged invalid. I want to see whether my attempt to eliminate this sort of thing was successful. I have a niggling suspicion that this will be judged TRUE but I hope it will be judged FALSE, I'm just pretty certain it shouldn't be judged INVALID.

Call For Criminal Judgement 158 - Sun 05 Apr 1998 09:30 EDT
Subject: Disinterest
Initiator: K 2
Judge: Slakko (selected April 05, 1998, 11:43)
Judgement: FALSE

Statment:

Hoover 2300 committed the Crime of Disinterest on 4th of April 1998.

using majordomo who command I have verified that Hoover 2300 (stadler@supernet.ab.ca) is not currently subscribed to the main mailing list.

>>>> who ackanomic
Members of list 'ackanomic':

joffraint@mail.utexas.edu
devjoe@wilma.che.utexas.edu
breadbox@muppetlabs.com
jmccoy@umich.edu
munizao@cyberhighway.net
glug@total.net
turowski@accessone.com
jobollin@indiana.edu
norpan@bigfoot.com
pk@cordoba6.ns.itd.umich.edu
mitcharf@mail.utexas.edu
crackfoo@geocities.com
tilleyjl@email.uc.edu
t.walmsley@lineone.net
kii@internex.net.au
tows@earthlink.net
david@infocom.com
aaron.keesler@adtran.com
dcr24@cam.ac.uk
joshherr@concentric.net
dankna@bergen.org
shimmin@ews.uiuc.edu
plumb@hawaii.edu
gmd@earthling.net
alfvaen@telusplanet.net
nlance@hawaii.edu
stefansa@ssd.comm.mot.com
jda23@cam.ac.uk
silvertree@iname.com
matt.bradbury@pobox.com
glary@codesystems.com
sharsmvk@localnet.com
idiot@slack.net
jtraub@dragoncat.net
ilk20@hermes.cam.ac.uk
joel_ricker@hotmail.com
c452581@showme.missouri.edu

37 subscribers

by rule 422, this constitutes the Crime of Disinterest iff e is not on vacation.

Hoover 2300 may have put emself on vacation with the following message (posted Thu, 02 Apr 1998 18:21:48):

<snip>
I leave the situation

and take a vacation from myself.
<snip>

Taking vacation from 'myself' is not the same as taking vacation from Ackanomic, however, given the nature of Hoover 2300's posts..... I leave it up to the judge to decide.

a SENTENCE in the Gaol of 100 days. - well e is disinterested :)

The Caped Crusader's foresight in sending me the mailing list is commendable. This saves me having to check it myself. However, there is also the possibility that Hoover 2300 was on the ackanomic-digest list. I am reasonably certain e was not, and so I accept that, if e was not on vacation, e committed the crime of Disinterest on the date in question.

So, was e on vacation? E would only not be on vacation if the message mentioned in the Caped Crusader's reasoning did in fact put Hoover 2300 on vacation. So, did it?

Rule 255 says that a player shall be considered "on vacation" when he or she makes a public request that he or she desires to go on vacation. It does not say what kind of vacation must be taken. "Vacation from myself" is still a type of vacation. I think that it is reasonable to say that "I take a vacation" is a public request of desire to go on vacation. Game custom has interpreted it as such in the past when people have said that they would "go on vacation, estimated duration ....". The "public request to desire" bit is merely a long-winded way of saying "must say so".

As the rules only require the player to indicate eir desire to "go on vacation", and this is not specifically vacation from any entity, I find that a "vacation from myself" is equivalent to a "vacation from Ackanomic".

Hence Hoover 2300 was on vacation.

Hence I judge this CFCJ FALSE.

Call For Criminal Judgement 159 - Sun 05 Apr 1998 09:38
Subject: Tabula
Initiator: K 2
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected April 05, 1998, 11:47)
Judgement: TRUE

Statment:

rufus committed the Crime of Non-Performance on 30th of March 1998.

On Friday, 13th of March 1998 at 12:41:26 -0500 (EST) rufus announced:
"

It seems that our newly elected senator was a senator already, and can't
hold two seats.  So I am going to call a new nomination.

Reply to nominate yourself.

rufus
Count Tabula

"

This would then constitute the start of the nomination period by rule 402 the nomination period would have ended on 16th of March. By rule 401 e then has 3 days to announce the start of the election (ie 19th of March). It is now April and rufus has still not performed the Duties (according to rule 408) of Count Tabula. By rule 701 this constitutes the crime of Non-Performance.

This would be my suggested penalty:
a slap on the wrist and a 300 word apology in which each word derives from a different base word.

A 3 line apology.

I agree with the initiator's reasoning as to the fact that rufus comitted the crime of none performance. However, I'm unsure as to whether e was comitting the crime on March 30. I was slightly concerned that fourteen day retroactivity might have caused the game state to "think" that the initial call was never made but fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective), it was just within fourteen days. Therefore rufus should have been distributing the results but wasn't. Therefoe e was comitting the crime of Non-Performance.

Having decided that e is guilty I have to decide a penalty. Before I do so, I'll do a bit of Malenkai quoting (a worthwhile pursuit if ever there was one). Firstly from his reasoning on CFCJ 146:

"CFCJs should be used for 3 things, IMO: harf, strategy, and remedial action against cheaters. I'm not sure they are appropriate for honest mistakes. Indeed, the initiator did not ask for much in terms of penalization, but clogging the justice system with this and having the defendant enshrined in the CFCJ archives is enough penalty; any further token penalization would be petty."

Next, his appeal reasoning for CFCJ 148:

"I certainly do not understand how this new stand on crime is "harfy", and why players need to go to Gaol for making honest mistakes."

I agree with Malenkai's thoughts here. Harfing the game is not easy and we all ought to be grateful to all those who do it. Not having sufficient time to continue with this is hardly a crime (well, it is in the Acka sense of the word, but you know what I mean). It's not as if rufus was maliciously refusing to publish the results. Using Malenkai's criteria, this is not harfy, I can't see any strategy in it and it wasn't as if rufus was cheating.

A deduction of 0 points from rufus' score.

Call For Criminal Judgement 160 - Sun 05 Apr 1998 16:47
Subject: Zuriti'ili
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
Judge: Illusion (selected April 05, 1998, 17:50)
Judgement: TRUE

Statment:

Guy Fawkes committed the crime of Zuriti'ili on April 05, 1998 AD.

I believe that by posting the bellow quoted message titled "Acka: Actions" Guy Fawkes committed Zuriti'ili.

"I am performing the following actions:

I am retracting my IP against Alfvaen.

I am filing an IP against Alfvaen, with intent to remove him from the
Office of Praetor.

I am buying 90 stocks.

GF"

Let us look at the guidelines 1 by 1.

At least once in the history of Ackanomic, a player has committed Zuriti'ili.

Is true. I did not that long ago.

Zuriti'ili may be related to one or more entities that can be owned.

*May* be. Doesn't have to be.

Any action involving a prime number of named ownable entities is not Zuriti'ili.

This doesn't. Impeachment papers and messages to mailing lists are not ownable.

Zuriti'ili is never committed simultaneously with another Crime.

No other crime is being committed.

The number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed, at any given point in time, is a prime number.

See CFCJ 155 for why this doesn't matter.

The Ackaphysicist has committed, or will commit, this crime at least once.

Is irrelevant. This being judged TRUE would have no effect on this guideline.

No one who is not a member of an organization can commit Zuriti'ili.

Guy is a member of the Church of Righteous loophold surfers or whatever they are called.

Zuriti'ili may only be committed by the speaker if he publicly announces the number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed in the past and the date and time.

Guy is not the Speaker.

It is possible for an act of Zuriti'ili to involve anti-voting in a certain pattern, but that pattern is unknown.

Is possible. Doesn't have to. Again see CFCJ 155.

Most instances on Zuriti'ili go undetected.

Doesn't matter and is irrelevant to the case in hand.

So GF *could* have committed Zuriti'ili, but did e? Of course e did. Exploiting the rules in a manner verging on being annoying in an attempt to deny our most righteous Praetor eir true privileges. It must be Zuriti'ili.

4 days in gaol to stop em trying to impeach Alfvaen again.

The Gingham Wearer seems to have covered all of the guidelines for Zuriti'ili pretty clearly. All of the guidelines apply to this situation. This means that Zuriti'ili could have been committed.

This doesn't mean that Zuriti'ili HAS been committed. So I must rely on other means to determine if it has. And fter much deliberation, it is my decision that Zuriti'ili has most definately been commited.

Guideline:

When someone is found guilty of Zuriti'ili, they can not commit it again until someone else has been found guilty of Zuriti'ili.

2 days in gaol, and a fine of A$50.