CALL FOR JUDGEMENT ARCHIVE (111-120)

Call For Criminal Judgement 111 - Mon, 05 Aug 1996 18:37:23 -0400
Subject: Failing to pay the Gaoler
Initiator: snowgod
Judge: Habeous Corpus (selected Mon, Aug 02, 1996, 19:24 New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Player ThinMan has violated R101

ThinMan, acting in his capacity as Financier has transferred no salary to this is not a name's account in compensation for his duties as acting gaoler. ThinMan has violated rule 609 section iv (per rule 712 (gaoler, creation of), and in doing so, violated R101.

R609 section iv reads:

(iv) Acting Officers:

The Rules may specify conditions under which a Player serves in an Office in an "Acting" capacity. In such a case, the Player is responsible for performing all of the Duties without receiving any of the Privileges of the Office. For any given Seat, there can be an "Acting" Officer only if the Seat is vacant.

A SENTENCE in the Gaol of 5 days and a FINE of A$20

While snowgod made a convincing argument quoting Rule 609 (and accurately, too); e overlooked Rule 612 which states, in part:

Rule 612/4 (Mutable)
Functional Offices, Commonalities
pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)

This rule takes precedence over rule 609.

The following applies to all Functional Offices:

(ii) As a Privilege of Office, each Player holding at least one Functional Office shall receive a weekly salary equal to the maximum of:
a) 3 units plus 1 unit for every Office held.
b) The salary that the Player would be eligible to receive if he held no Functional Offices.

Since Rule 712 does not claim precedence over Rule 612 or 609, by Rule 210, Rule 612 (ii) means that the Gaoler DOES receive a "salary". It does not state how much, it may even equal A$0.00, but e does receive a salary.

Since the Gaoler receives a salary (to be negotiated soon, I'm sure), ThinMan could not have violated Rule 101 by NOT paying a salary to this is not a name.

[I seem to remember somewhere that this type of conflict also makes Rule Void and wholly without effect, but I'm not sure with all the "fixes" that I haven't quite caught up with. I will CFJ this just to make sure.]

Call For Criminal Judgement 112 -
Subject: Gumball
Initiator: this is not a name
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Tue, Aug 27, 1996, 19:40 EDT)
Judgement: TRUE at Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:37:06 -0400
Appealed by Wayne (without comment) at Sep 3, 15:50 EDT
Supreme court's Judgement: TRUE (without comment)

Statement:

snowgod has broken the rules.

On 27 Aug 1996, snowgod posted a message reading in part:

>I am placing the gumball in my armpit, hoping to soften it up
>so that I may chew it more easily when the proper time comes.

This constitutes illegal manipulation of the gumball, which is a Protected entity.

I recommend a penalty of A$20.

I judge CFCJ 112 to be TRUE. Snowgod has indeed broken the law by manipulating a protected entity in an illegal manner.

Snowgod will go to Gaol for 6 days or until the end of the cycle, whichever comes first.

Call For Criminal Judgement 113 -
Subject: Those Freeze-Dried Otters
Initiator: snowgod
Judge: Pascal (selected Wed, Aug 28, 1996, 08:21 EDT) (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: IdiotBoy (selected Mon, Sep 02, 1996, 22:13 EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

this is not a name has broken the Rules

R1130 (Senate Seat Names) requires each senator to rename thier senate seat to one which is interesting. It goes on to stipulate that said interesting name must fulfill the same criterion as a legal Player Name.

R570, which regulates legal Player Names, states:

>The Name must consist of at least three, and no more
>than twenty alphanumerical characters. All nomic business
>must use the Name when referring to a specific player.

this is not a name has, unwisely it seems, given his senate seat the amusing, though illegal, name of "seven freeze dried otters". This name has 25 alphanumeric characters (including the spaces), and is clearly in violation of R1130.

a sentence in the Gaol of 2 days for this is not a name -and- the transference of A$100 from this is not a name to snowgod

The written argument of snowgod is impeccable. By rules 1130 and 570, I am compelled to return a judgement of TRUE.

A TRANSFERENCE of court costs, plus punitive damages of 2*(court costs) to the initiator. The Financier will report a transfer of A$60 from this is not a name to snowgod.

A SENTENCE of 2 days in the Gaol for this is not a name, suspended until such time as another CFCJ judgement or TRUE is returned against this is not a name.

Call For Criminal Judgement 114 - Tue, 10 Sep 1996 21:58:38 -0400
Subject: Unlawful use of the Public Forum
Initiator: this is not a name
Judge: ThinMan (selected Thu, Sep 05, 1996, 00:51 EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

this is not a name has broken the Rules

On 4 September 1996, at approximately 8:31 PM EDT, this is not a name posted to the public forum the following message:

> *#(@$&@(DS>KC@#U(

this is not a name used and therefore manipulated the public forum, which is a protected entity, and broke R592. As no rule gave this is not a name the right to manipulate the public forum in this way, he has broken the rules. Note that the rules govern specific instances in which players may post to the public forum, such as Senators' votes on confirmations, but do not give blanket permission.

Note that rule 592 states that:

>Words and the use of words in public messages are not
>Protected, except where specified by other rules.

However, "*#(@$&@(DS>KC@#U(" is not a word, and therefore the dangerous criminal this is not a name cannot benefit from this clause of 592.

One month in the Gaol for this is not a name (due to the severity and recidivism, dating back to April, of his crime) and a fine to the Treasury of one-half of his A$ (rounded down if necessary to avoid fractional units).

The Ackanomic mailing list is defined by Rule 832 to be a public forum, and it is, in fact, the public forum relevant to this CFCJ (R 832 allows for others). Is it actually an Ackanomic entity as this is not a name claims? Without going into an in-depth argument, I agree that it is.

The rules do govern a multitude of instances in which players may or must post messages to the public forum. I would even agree that posting a message to the public forum is sometimes an Ackanomic action. But is it a manipulation of the forum? I refer to CFJ 197, which establishes that the manipulation of an entity described in R 592 is the act of changing something about it. tinan changed nothing about the mailing list by posting his "message," therefore he did not manipulate it.

tinan is not off the hook yet, however. He posted the previously described message to the public forum. If that was an Ackanomic action, then it was a protected action, and there is no rule that permits such an action. The Rules are not clear on whether such a post is an Ackanomic action or not. In my opinion, some posts are ackanomic actions -- particularly those that are required or explicitly permitted by the Rules, and those that have some effect on Ackanomic entities.

But surely it is game custom that carrying on discussion on the mailing list is not a violation of the R 592, even though no Rule explicitly permits it. It follows, then, that posting discussion material on the mailing list is not an Ackanomic action. It is beyond the scope of this decision to determine categorically which posts constitute Ackanomic actions and which do not, but I can and must make a specific determination about the post in question. Based on game custom and the spirit of the game, therefore, I find that tinan did not perform an Ackanomic action by posting the message. Thus he did not violate the rules.

Call For Criminal Judgement 115 - Mon, 23 Sep 1996 01:39:32 -0400
Subject: Illegal Press
Initiator: snowgod
Judge: Guy Fawkes (selected Sep 18, 1996, 21:31 EDT) (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Sep 20, 1996, 20:40 EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

IdiotBoy has broken the rules.

IdiotBoy has started a newsparer (the Hot Tips Newletter) in violation of R891, which states that "Any Player may start a newspaper, by publically declaring that they are doing so. Newspapers must be given names, which must be announced at the same time that the newspaper is created. A small fee of A$20 must be paid to the treasury to cover start-up costs."

IdiotBoy may or may not have complied with the first two sentences of R891, depending on interpretaion, but there can be no doubt that he has not complied with the third sentence that requires him to pay a fee of A$20 to the treasury.

The rules do not define exactly what a newspaper is, but I contend that the Hot Tips Newsletter is exactly that. It is a weekly report, always published under the same title. It contains news and information which is meant to inform it subscribers. IdiotBoy calls himself "editor" of the HTN (and who has heard of an editor with no publication?).

With no clear defination of a newspaper in the rules, the judge must reach his desicion in accordance with currently existing game custom (which would require the common sense interpretation of a what a newspaper is) and the spirit of the game (which is tough on crime).

A FINE of $150 credits [due to the commercial nature of the publication] payable to the treasury.

and

a SENTENCE in the Gaol of 3 days

Snowgod (frozenwaterdeity?) puts forward reasonable questions and draws a fair conclusion. Trying to circumvent the law by avoiding the name yet assuming its definition (a publication) should not be allowed, however worthy and useful the endeavor. It must follow the rules.

Given the situation, the fine will be of A$30. It is a commercial publication but it would not be right to give a fine so large as to render useless all of IdiotBoy's good efforts at earning a profit from his hard work. Also, A$20 will be transferred to the account of snowgod (forzenwaterdeity?) to cover the court fee.

However, the Rules are the Rules and must be followed. There is also the fact that the financial penalty was reduced. Therefore IdiotBoy is sentenced to 4 full days in the Goal to meditate upon his crime.

Call For Criminal Judgement 116 - Mon, 21 Oct 1996 14:24:28 -0400
Subject: Illegal Publishing
Initiator: mr cwm
Judge: /dev/joe (selected Oct 18, 1996, 20:50 EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Guy Fawkes has broken the rules.

Guy Fawkes posted the following message:

"Any holder of a Chartreuse Goose Egg is hereby invited to submit a bid to take this fowl most foul off my hands. Name your price; the lowest bid shall win.

Guy Fawkes"

R891 states that "News articles may only be posted by the owner of a newspaper, quoting the name of the newspaper in the article. Such an article is said to have been published in that paper. No player may publish articles in a paper she does not own without the express permission of the publisher."

The posted message quotes the name of a newspaper, is, prominently in the center of the first line. The posted article contains news, that is, it contains information previously unknown, but possibly of interest, to Ackanomians. By quoting the name of a newspaper, this news article is said (by R891) to have been published in that paper. However, Guy Fawkes is neither the owner of that paper, nor does he have the explicit permission of that paper's publisher, mr cwm, to publish in it. Guy Fawkes has violated R891.

(Note that "news article" is either defined by R891 to be a message such as this, quoting the name of a newspaper, or it is undefined, in which case common English usage would indicate that this message containing news is a "news article.")

Transfer of entities: A$24 to mr cwm (A$4 in actual damages, A$20 in court costs).

Fines: A$12 (triple damages)

There are several possible interpretations of rule 891. CFJ 308 established that merely using the name of a newspaper in a message is not sufficient to make that message be a news article -- only messages that are written in the style of a newspaper article are considered to be published in a newspaper.

The message in question looks nothing like a newspaper article (maybe a classified ad at best), so I judge this CFCJ to be FALSE.

Note that CFJ 308's interpretation does not conflict with the Hot Tips Newsletter being judged to be a newspaper -- although I haven't seen a copy of it myself, what IdiotBoy was advertising and asking payment for was very much like a newspaper.

Note also that send copies of newspaper articles still constitutes publishing an article in a newspaper and is prohibited. However, this can easily be circumvented, perhaps by deleting the name of the newspaper in the copy.

Note (yeah, another note) that legitimate newspapers might currently be prohibited from quoting the names of other newspapers without permission in their articles, currently.

Call For Criminal Judgement 117 - Wed, 06 Nov 1996 23:31:52 -0500
Subject: Illegal *pinging*
Initiator: ThinMan
Judge: fnord (selected Oct 26, 1996, 00:13 EDT) (did not respond)
2nd Judge: /dev/joe (selected Oct 31, 1996, 22:05 EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Guy Fawkes has broken the rules.

The judge need only consider Guy Fawkes' own words:

>According to the rules, a message like this should be posted:
>
>Today is Friday, the 25th day of October, in the Year of Our Lord
>1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I
>have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 6 times.
>
>However; I should have posted this message yesterday:
>
>Today is Thursday, the 24th day of October, in the Year of Our Lord
>1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I
>have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 6 times.
>
>Making today's message:
>
>Today is Friday, the 25the day of October, in the Year of Our Lord
>1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I
>have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 7 times.
>
>Alas, I have broken the rules.
>
>Guy Fawkes
>Scholar of *ping*

I respect Mr. Fawkes, and appreciate his contributions to the game. It is particularly ironic that he has run afoul of a rule of his own creation. I think it very good sportsmanship that he admitted his error at this time, and urge the judge to go easy on him.

1 day in Gaol

Now that the Machine's Truth is known, it is (even more than before) obvious that Guy Fawkes' own admission of guilt was true.

Guy Fawkes now stands to gain A$50, provided that nobody submits another CFCJ against him in the next three days. Since he handled the situation very well, in a way that did not disrupt the game, I feel a fair penalty is to simply take that A$50 away.

A FINE of A$50.

Call For Criminal Judgement 118 - Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:30:18 -0500
Subject: More Illegal Publishing
Initiator: Mohammed
Judge: fnord (selected Oct 29, 1996, 21:32 EST)
Judgement: TRUE at Sat, 02 Nov 1996 23:24:49 -0500
Appealed by breadbox at Sun, 03 Nov 1996 11:40:37 -0500
Supreme Court's Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

snowgod has broken the rules.

snowgod published an article in a paper he does not own: "is".

Rule 482 ("Office of the Financier and Free Market") reads, in part:
---
2) An entity is Tradeable if and only if the rules specify that it is, otherwise it is non-Tradeable. The rules may specify specific conditions or mechanisms for non-Tradeable entities to be traded or transferred; this rule defers to any such rules where there is a conflict. Tradeable entities may only be transferred by methods described in the rules.
---

Rule 891, "The Press", reads:
---
The player that creates a newspaper is said to own that newspaper. No player may own more than three newspapers at any one time. Newspapers are tradeable. An owner of a newspaper may close it down

[...]

No player may publish articles in a paper she does not own without the express permission of the owner.
---

Although R891 says that newspapers are tradeable and R482 specifies how Tradeable entities can be transferred, Rule 891 also says that the player who creates a newspaper is its owner.

Since snowgod is not the creator of "is", he does not own it, and it is illegal for him to publish articles in it without permission.

snowgod supposedly managed to purchase the paper from mr cwm, but I believe that purchase was ineffectual. Regardless of whether the deal was legal (and that's a trickly legal point, I guess) it can't have changed the owner of the newspaper permanently: R891, I believe, would transfer it right back to mr cwm.

I recommend a FINE of A$31 from snowgod to the Treasury and a SENTENCE of 1 day in Gaol for our beloved President.

Going by game custom (which I always consider first, though not necessarily more important), whenever anyone trades something 'tradeable', we have been going on as if the persons in possession of the items are now the owners of those items. However, checking the Rules, most especially R482, it never actually defines that the players OWN the items they were transferred, merely that they are in possession of them.

Secondly, from what I have seen throughout the rules, in any instance where an entity is created, it was created unowned, except in the case of a newspaper.
In the case of newspapers, it states explicitly who owns it: the creator. Later on in the rule it may say that newspapers are tradeable, but as outlined above, trading does not imply owning. It then goes on to say that only that owner can write in the newspaper.

As a result of these Rules, snowgod may currently be in possession of 'is', but he does not own it. Therefore, he can not publish an article in it without permission from mr cwm. Therefore, he indeed broke the rules, and this CFCJ is ruled TRUE.

snowgod is Fined A$19, payable to the Treasury, and Sentenced to 1 day in Gaol.
His Fine was reduced A$12 from the Suggested Penalty because he has already paid mr cwm A$12 for a newspaper he cannot publish.

fnord and Mohammed have outlined the situation for which ownership and possession might not be considered to be equivalent. I appreciate their careful work in examining the rules, but I feel that game custom essentially requires that we consider the possessor of an object to be the owner, with renting currently being the sole exception to this (as per Rule 1323).

fnord points out that objects traded on the Free Market change their possessor, but the rules do not explicitly specify that the new possessor also becomes the owner. If we wish to construe this to mean that the owner in fact does not change, then we need to consider the case of Rule 1023 as well, which governs Auctions. Section 4 states:

The Auction shall last for 3 days, after which time the Auctioneer shall announce the results, and all A$ and items shall be transferred to their new owners.

Note that this sentence does not attempt to alter the ownership of any items. If possession does not grant ownership, then this sentence only confers possession of items, specifically to "their new owners." However, this is the only reference to ownership that appears anywhere in this rule (besides section 1, which refers only to ownership prior to an Auction). Now, section 5b does state:

Let N be the quantity of items up for Auction. The players who made the N highest qualified bids shall each receive an item in exchange for the amount of A$ they bid.

I think that, again, we can agree that "receiving" an item does confer "possession." But if possession does not grant ownership, then the ownership of the auctioned items still has not changed. Ownership is never explicitly transfered anywhere in this rule. So the previously quoted sentence of section 4 would seem to indicate (if it would indicate anything meaningful at all) that the items are transferred to their current owners, which would be the players that owned them at the start of the auction - assuming that the items were owned to begin with.

Taking an interpretation of possession as not being a part of ownership would thus seem to indicate, for example, that most gadgets are still in fact unowned, as ownership has never been granted to their current possessors.

Furthermore: a quick perusal of the rules will show that the only items in Ackanomic whose rules specifically describe a change of ownership (as opposed to a change of possession) are the Purple Robe of Justice, Treasure, and Trinkets. That is, not only are all Tradeable objects assumed by the rules to confer ownership along with a change of hands, but nearly all Entities, such as the Chartreuse Goose, also change possession without the governing rules also specifying a transfer of ownership.

And yet, despite this, game effects are quite frequently noted as occuring with respect to the owner of an item. In fact, "owner" and "possessor" are used interchangeably everywhere in the rules. To use the Chartreuse Goose as an example, I quote from Rule 1243:

Let the Chartreuese Goose exist, it is a unique entity.... It may only be possessed by one player at a time.... The player possessing the Chartreuse Goose is responsible for feeding it. At such time that officers' salaries are paid, 4 A$ shall be deducted from the account of the player then possessing the Chartreuse Goose.... If this payment would force a player to go into debt, the 4 A$ is not paid, but instead the Goose becomes grumpy and bites its owner, inflicting a 2-point penalty.... A player possessing a Chartreuse Goose Egg may take the Goose off the hands of any player who possesses it, provided the Goose owner agrees to the transaction, and pays a mutually agreed upon amount of currency (of at least A$50) to the Treasury. The Egg owner will receive from the Treasury the same amount that the Goose owner payed in, as compensation.

Since the Goose was originally unowned, if possession of the Goose does not make one the owner, it would seem that the Chartreuse Goose does not and has never had an owner (and never will, under the current ruleset). Such an interpretation renders the consistency of some of the above sentences as rather debatable. In any case, it certainly means that we have not being observing the rules correctly.

These same types of problems are present in the rules governing nearly all of the Gadgets (Whamiols, Electronic Potatoes, etc, confer game effect upon their owners, not their possessors), many of the entities defined by the rules (Prosthetic Foreheads, for example, may only be worn by their owners), and really just about anything that is Tradeable (including PFbonds)!

Obviously, it would be almost impossible to go back and reconstruct the game wherein all items were still being owned by their original owners (or unowned, as the case may be), and tally up all the game effects to occur with respect to their owners instead of their possessors. I submit that the weight of this fact is enough to clearly establish a game custom, such that wherever the rules grant possession of an items, they should be interpreted as granting ownership alongside it (except where explicitly differentiated, as in the case with the Rental rule).

I would like to point out that it is true that in common English usage possession does not necessarily imply ownership. But Ackanomic runs under a different set of constraints than the outside world. Specifically, it is not possible to steal. (At least, not at the moment.) Our ruleset, including Rules 482 and 891, has been written with the assumption that the possessor and owner of an item are one and the same, and this ancient assumption is the basis for a game custom.

Given this, I claim that the only reason to find this CFCJ true would be if snowgod did not in fact purchase the newspaper "is" from mr cwm. This transaction did in fact occur; it is recorded by a series of three messages sent to the public forum on October 21. For the sake of documentation I shall quote the last of these:

  Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 14:08:56 -0400 (EDT)
  From: mr cwm <murrayer@pirates.Armstrong.EDU>
  Subject: Re: Acka: Newspaper for sale, like new, CHEAP!

  I ack this transaction, trading is for A$12 with snowgod.

  - -mr cwm

  On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, snowgod wrote:

  >On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, mr cwm wrote:
  >
  >> For Sale:  One Newspaper, never published.  Has trendy 90's name, "is",
  >> and slight historical significance.  A$20 new, will sacrifice for A$12, or
  >> will take two authentic snowgod second presidential election campaign
  >> Prosthetic Foreheads in trade.  Contact mr cwm at murrayer@pirates.edu.
  >
  >Heck, for a price like A$12, how can you go wrong.  Assuming newspapers
  >are tradeable (and I don't have the rules in front of me at the moment) I
  >will gladly purchase your paper.  I'd trade you the foreheads, but I
  >would prefer to keep them as a set until I auction them off (which
  >reminds me - the whamiol was completed yesterday.  Either malenkai or I
  >need to auction it.)
  >
  >snowgod
  >acking the transaction assuming mr cwm does

On the basis of these observations, I humbly request that the Supreme Court overturn the verdict of CFCJ 118.

The Supreme Court finds the Reasoning of the original Judge to be sound. Whatever Game Custom might have been for other entities, it cannot override the wording of R891 (The Press), interpreted (in this case) in accord with common usage. While Game Custom may remain that possession implies ownership for the many examples cited by the Appealer, R891 makes Newspapers an exception to that Custom, much as R1323 (Rental) does, thus weakening it. The Supreme Court suggests that the definition of Entities in the future make explicit the link, or lack thereof, between possession and ownership.

Call For Criminal Judgement 119 -
Subject: Crime
Initiator: Red Barn
Judge: AirHead (selected Jan 16, 1997, 21:54 EST)
Judgement: Determined by CFJ 327 not to be a valid CFCJ

Statement:

Chess nuts boasting in an open foyer is a criminal.

Per R1571, which contains the phrase

"Chess nuts boasting in an open foyer is a crime."

Needless to say, for a player, the word is "criminal", rather than "crime".

[none was suggested]

Call For Criminal Judgement 120 - Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:44:44 -0500
Subject: Illegal Name Change
Initiator: fnord
Judge: Bascule (selected Jan 17, 1997, 02:23 EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Red Barn has committed a Crime.

Red Barn, when attempting to change his name to "Chess nuts boasting in an open foyer" broke the Rules.

To be specific, Red Barn broke Rule 251 ("Player Names"). Rule 251 clearly states that this name must be a string of name characters from three to twenty characters in length. Obviously, the name Red Barn chose for eirself is more than 20 characters. It is in fact, 36 characters.

A Sentence of 5 days in the Gaol
A Public Apology of 10 lines

As a matter of public record, I am quoting ThinMan from a post to the public forum:

 > In my opinion, CFCJ 120 must be judged False.  The part of Rule 251
 > that Red Barn is alleged to have broken is definitive, not regulatory,
 > and thus it is impossible to break it.  Moreover, Red Barn did not
 > follow the correct procedure for changing his Ackanomic name, thus
 > his Ackanomic name would never have become "chess nuts boasting in an
 > open foyer" even if that were a legal name.  (He did not provide an
 > explanation of the change.)  Finally, the Registrar has the duty and
 > right to reject name changes which would produce otherwise illegal
 > names, which implies that no name change can be official until the
 > Registrar approves it.  The Registrar did not approve the name change
 > in question.

It is not often that I disagree with ThinMan, however in this case I do.

From "Crime":

 > An action specified by the Rules to be "impermissible" is, by
 > contrast, impossible. However, an attempt to commit such an action
 > is a Crime [even though the action itself does not occur].

Red Barn attempted to change his name to "Chess nuts boasting in an open foyer", an illegal Ackanomic name.

From "Player Names":

 > A player may change his Ackanomic name, so long as the new name
 > complies with all applicable rules.

As Red Barn's new name did not comply with all applicable rules, he was not permitted to change his name, and his attempt to do so was a crime.

Red Barn:

 > I believe that that was quite a serious offense, and that there should
 > therefore be some monetary penalty, as well.

This judge will not be lenient with criminals who willingly commit what they consider to be "quite a serious offense".

A Sentence of 5 days in the Gaol
A Public Apology of 10 lines
A Fine of A$50