CALL FOR CRIMINAL JUDGEMENT ARCHIVE (161-170)

Call For Criminal Judgement 161 - April 23
Subject: Exhibitionism
Initiator: JT (sent April 22, 1998, 18:05)
Judge: K 2 (selected April 23, 1998, 12:46)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Hubert committed the crime of Rampant Exhibitionism on Apr 22.

I now quote from the message titled 'Re: Acka: Sounds Good' authored by Hubert on Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:25 Acka time.

>I can't resist.  
>I go to the Town Hall, a Common Location.
>I just can't help dancing to that Truly Great song.
>I dance on the Town Hall Steps.  Naked.  Uncontrollably, and making even
>more of a complete fool of myself than is usual.

It is not the second Tuesday of the month, and furthermore he was Naked. The first is sufficient for the crime to have been committed.

Post the full lyrics to Virginia Plain.

Hubert's dance on the town hall steps was criminal for the following reasons (according to rule 842):
i) it was not the second Tuesday of a month
ii) e did not pay $A2 to breadbox (The First Citizen)
iii) the dance was not described in verse.

According to that rule, this constitues the crime of Rampant Exhibitionism.

Accordingly Hubert is found Guilty of this vile act, burned as a witch, eir ashes scattered across the entire banna shaped earth and eir land sown with salt. Additionally this CFJ is ruled TRUE.

A 13 Line Apology. Should this happen to include the full lyrics to Virginia Plain, so much the better ;)

Call For Criminal Judgement 162 - April 23
Subject: Exhibitionism 2
Initiator: K 2 (sent April 22, 1998, 22:57)
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (deadbeat)
Second Judge: Alfvaen (selected April 30, 1998, 17:34)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by: Hubert (May 5, 1998)
Cortex: The Entity Formerly Known as the Supreme Court (Assigned May 6, 1998)
Cortex: /dev/cortex (reassigned July 20, 1998) Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Hubert committed the Crime of Illegal Action on 22nd April 1998.

On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:20:00 Hubert posted:
.....
I dance on the Town Hall Steps. Naked.
.....

Rule 842 states:
At all times it is illegal to dance naked on the Town Hall Steps.

Of course this brings up the question of what exactly naked is in ackanomic. Is it the fact that one is not wearing a rule defined garment? Or simply that one describes oneself as being naked? Either way Hubert was naked.

Transference of a Wool sweater from the treasury to Hubert to cover eir nakedness.

The suggested penalty is not a valid one according to Rule 710. Only a transferrence of an entity from Hubert to K 2 would be valid. However, I think that there is some game custom that a CFCJ shall not be rendered invalid merely because of an invalid suggested penalty. (See, for instance, CFCJ 137.)

Rule 842's requirements are indeed clear. I'm not sure whether or not it is actually the Crime of Rampant Exhibitionism to dance naked on the town hall steps(it is listed as "illegal", not "a Crime"), but Hubert certainly did not pay A$2 to the First Citizen for a[sic] Exhibitionist's permit, and the dance was not described in verse. Therefore, e committed the Crime of Rampant Exhibitionism.

A FINE of A$2(to cover the Exhibitionist's permit) and
a PUBLIC APOLOGY of 5 lines so that Hubert may properly describe eir dance in verse.

Firstly, the CFCJ was on the matter of the Crime of Illegal Action (i.e., performing an action that is specified by the Rules to be illegal). The judge's reasoning showed how I had performed the Crime of Rampant Exhibitionism, for which I have already been convicted. Rule 710 says that a CFCJ shall be judged TRUE if the Crime Y [Illegal Action] was committed by player X [yours truly] on date Z [22nd April 1998]. Therefore, Alfvaen's reasoning is moot and belongs in CFCJ 161 or 163. (I might add that the double jeopardy clause (section 10) of R710 does not prevent me from being tried for Rampant Exhibitionism twice now that I look at it more closely; it prevents a player from being tried twice for the same instance of "allegedly breaking the Rules," which is, of course, Blatant Disregard.)

Next, I shall attempt to show that I did not, in fact, commit the Crime of Illegal Action. Rule 842 states "At all times it is illegal to dance naked on the Town Hall Steps." [ The second clause, "For the purposes of this rule a player is considered to be naked if e is not wearing a rule defined garment," was not in effect on 22 April 1998. ] The Rules did not define nakedness, and it could be construed that the sentence fragment "Naked." after I stated I was dancing on the Town Hall steps did not make me so, but that is not the thrust of my reasoning. At the time of the creation of Rule 842 there existed a Trinket called "naked". Since this Trinket existed before Rule 842 was created, I would argue that Rule 842 refers to dancing this Trinket (a kind of puppet, which indeed refers to itself being danceable) on the Town Hall steps. In which case, it probably exploded. Anyway, since I did not come near that Trinket (really! It was the one-armed man!) I could not have danced naked on the Town Hall steps. Thank you, and good night.

The appealer's argument, applying a twisted but just barely plausible meaning to the word "naked", fails because K 2 destroyed "naked" April 2nd, before the Town Hall rule was created on April 8th. Thus, we revert to the most sensible meaning of 'naked' in that rule before it was defined by an amendment, which is either "not wearing any garment" or stating in the attempted action that he is doing so naked. The act in question met either definition of naked, so constitutes the crime of Illegal Action. (Since garments are defined, the definition of "naked" as not wearing garments makes more sense, and would probably hold out over the other if there was some question about it, which trumps any possible issue over the meaning of the word "Naked" in that message, standing alone as a sentence fragment.)

/dev/cortex would like to point out that even if the trinket "naked" had still existed when the rule was created, the appealer's contrived explanation for the meaning of "dance naked on the town hall steps" could still be superseded by the more sensible one of not wearing garments, as has precedent in CFJ 506 where it was judged that "No other players" made more sense as its common English meaning than as the name of the player "No other players", in the given context. As a result of all of this, /dev/cortex recommends the maximum penalty of 25 points to the appealer, in addition to upholding the original penalty to the accused.

/dev/cortex agrees that the double jeopardy prohibition in R710, as currently written, does not cover crimes other than Blatant Disregard, and should be amended to fix this (but possibly with some limit, so that if somebody is committing a crime continuously, you can CFCJ them again after some reasonable length of time if they have not fixed the situation).

A FINE of A$2(to cover the Exhibitionist's permit) and
a PUBLIC APOLOGY of 5 lines so that Hubert may properly describe eir dance in verse.

Call For Criminal Judgement 163 - April 23, 1998
Subject: Exhibitionism 3
Initiator: K 2 (sent April 22, 1998, 22:57)
Judge: Joe Java (selected April 23, 1998, 12:52)
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by: J.M. Bear
Judgement:

Statement:

Hubert committed the Crime of Rampant Exhibitionism on 22nd April 1998.

On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:20:00 Hubert posted:
I can't resist.
I go to the Town Hall, a Common Location.
I just can't help dancing to that Truly Great song.
I dance on the Town Hall Steps. Naked. Uncontrollably, and making even more of a complete fool of myself than is usual.

This was a crime according to rule 842 as:
i) it was not the second Tuesday of a month
ii) e did not pay $A2 to breadbox (The First Citizen)
iii) the dance was not described in verse.

rule 842 states:
Failure to comply to these requirements constitutes the crime of Rampant Exhibitionism.

The offender should be burned as a witch, eir ashes scattered across the entire banna shaped earth and eir land sown with salt.

A 22 line apology. (preferably in verse approved by both the poet laureate and the first citizen)

[none]

[none given]

Joe Java judged the existance of a crime TRUE without penalising it. He should at least have given a written reasoning for doing so. Suggested penalty for Joe Java: 1 point deduction.

Call For Criminal Judgement 164 - May 09, 1998
Subject: Malpractice
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer (sent May 09, 1998, 14:41)
Judge: Illusion (selected May 09, 1998, 14:43) (deadbeat)
Second Judge: Alfvaen
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The Gingham Wearer committed the Crime of Malpractice on 04th May 1998.

I went deadbeat on a CFCJ which then caused me to lose the purple robe of justice. I then selected myself for two subsequent CFJs believing that I had thrice the probability of being selected as anyone else and weighted my random selection thusly. Clearly this was not performing the duties of my office correctly. I plead guilty as charged.

A gaol sentence of 75 days.
A public apology of 40000 lines.
A fine of A$7000
A deduction of 3000000 points.

Rule 701, "Crime", states that "The act of performing a Duty incorrectly is the Crime of Malpractice."

Rule 212, "Selecting A Judge", states: "When a CFJ is made, the Clerk of the Court randomly selects a player(other than the initiator of the CFJ), to serve as Judge from among the active voting players eligible to judge CFJs." Rule 212 doesn't specify how the determination is to be made. Rule 230, "Level Playing Field", says that each of the alternatives is to be assigned equal probability, but defers to Rule 933, "Purple Robe of Justice", which also takes explicit precedence over Rule 212 and trebles the chance of being selected for a CFJ for the owner of the Robe.

The Gingham Wearer(who is Clerk of the Court)took possession of the Purple Robe of Justice on April 5, 1998, 19:03 EDT. E deadbeated on CFCJ 162 on April 30, 1998, 17:55 EDT. Since this involved eir being penalized "some number of points"(10) for "failing to respond to a CFJ", by Rule 933 the PRJ went Somewhere Else at this time.

The Gingham Wearer then selected emself for CFJ 582 and CFJ 584 on May 4, 1998, implying when posting the selection for CFJ 584 that this was due to the PRJ, which eir reasoning above substantiates. Clearly this violates Rule 933(and Rule 230, since Rule 933 did not override it in this case).

The final piece is Rule 413, "Clerk of the Court", which states that "to select Judges for CFJs" is one of the Office's Duties. Thus, to make a long story short("Too late!"), The Gingham Wearer performed one of the Duties of the Office of Clerk of the Court incorrectly, which is the Crime of Malpractice by Rule 701, and e did so on May 4, 1998. The only remaining question is that of penalty. The Gingham Wearer's own suggested penalties are, in the tradition of CFCJ's submitted against oneself, extraordinarily harsh. The fact that e has spent the Standard Harfer Fee just to submit this CFCJ, and will lose eir Brie(or lengthen the time until e receives one again)upon this Judgement, may seem to be punishment enough. However, e is trying very hard, and is even figuring out the deadbeat-Praetor connection. It was an honest mistake, and so the penalty shall not be very much.

The transfer of a Pyraic Frobnotzer, the trinkets "Jello Wrestling for Fun and Profit", "It could have been my honour to be utterly vanquished in a Duel by Guy Fawkes, but alas, I was cowardly and took contemptible shelter in Untouchability", and "Small off-duty Czechoslovakian traffic Warden 31"(should such a Trinket exist), and A$197 from The Gingham Wearer to the initiator of this CFCJ, and

A Public Apology of 7 lines.

Call For Criminal Judgment 165 (May 30)
Subject: Iconoclasm
Initiator: K 2 (sent May 30, 1998, 04:12)
Judge: Koxvolio (selected May 30, 1998, 09:04)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Hubert committed the Crime of Iconoclasm on 17th May.

According to Rule 1005, an organizational action consists of two parts, namely the suggestion, followed by the approval of each of the organization's members. Section 4.e of Rule 1301 gives Church Policy the ability outline an alternate method by which the church's priesthood may make a decision, however, neither that section nor any other section of rule 1301 gives church policy the power to initiate that action. As a result a church action must first be suggested before church policy may be applied to make a decision regarding that action.

Regarding the Order of the Razor Boomerang's (OotRB) Church Policy, the following statements have been made by its founder (Hubert): i) Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:07:41: Razor Boomerangs may refer to the Founder as anything other than "Hubert." This includes pronouns. The preceding two sentences are false, and so is this one.

ii) Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:05:58: Since Church Policy requires that all members approve of any organizational action suggested by the Founder, and since R1005 does not require public approval of actions, this happens instantaneously.

iii) Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:16:39: I suggest that the Order of the Razor Boomerang build a Secret Lab, and it occurs because I'm the Founder and two of my minio... uh, Priests have approved it already. Church Policy is whatever it needs to be in order for this to happen.

iv) Mon, 04 May 1998 18:25:37: I suggest that the Order of the Razor Boomerang use its Secret Lab to create a Spell Book of Chorg. Since I am the Founder, this happens.

v) Sun, 24 May 1998 01:34:05: Did I forget to mention that the Order of the Razor Boomerang automatically approves of any action the Razor Boomerangs undertake? It's in the Church Policy.

Since points ii and iii-iv appear to disagree it would appear that church policy changed to allow the founder to make autocratic decisions. In accord with this, an action undertaken by the OotRB on 04 May 1998 18:25:37 only required the suggestion of the founder:

>I suggest that the Order of the Razor Boomerang transfer its
>Spell Book of Chorg to Joe Java. Since I am the Founder, this happens.

According to point v the OotRB automatically approves all RB actions, however according to rule 1005 an organizational action must first be suggested since church policy does not have the power to do so itself. Since Hubert did not suggest that the OotRB take the action of approving the action of the RB, that was suggested on 17 May 1998 20:15:59, within a week of the suggestion of that action, e disobeyed church policy which implicitly requires the suggestion of that action. As a result Hubert committed the heinous crime of Iconoclasm.

Ideally the miscreant would be hung by eir toe nails and pummelled into unconsciousness with a razor boomerang, however, since such punishment is legally impossible:

Removal from the Order of the Razor Boomerangs and Transference of Bill's Razor Boomerang, Sluggo's Razor Boomerang and Goldie's Razor Boomerang to the initiator of this CFJ that e may be return them to worshipers of the faith.

With regret, I must judge this False. The Church Policy must be regarded as unknown by anybody except the Founder, because he may be able to change it at no notice.
As things currently stand, the Founder is fairly immune - your reasoning stands up if all your assumptions are true, but assumes too many things which are not necessarily the case. OotRB may have, in their Church Policy, a clause saying that the Founder's actions always conform the the requirements, or that Church Policy adjusts to what he thinks it is. If a change is made, we do not need to be told, and (perhaps) the followers of the church themselves are not even told...
I would only accept CFCJs for iconoclasm if the Founder called them, on the principle that it is likely that the only person with an accurate idea of Church Policy is the Founder, and if something cannot be proved true, it must be left in question.

Call For Criminal Judgement 166 - June 8, 1998
Subject: Mu-Cow Hunter, Crime of Disinterest
Initiator: Saaremaa (sent June 8, 00:10)
Judge: Thin Man (selected June 8, 01:48) - Incorrectly selected by ACotC
Judge: Slakko (selected June 8, 10:21)
Verdict: TRUE
Appealed: Saaremaa (June 9, 12:32 Acka)
Cortex: The Cortex of the Golden Frog (breadox and Dennis and Edna acting for Saaremaa and Mr. Tambourine Man) (Selected June 9th, 14:34 Acka)
Verdict: TRUE
[ This is not an official CFCJ but merely an opinion. For info, see what purported to be CFJ 611 ]

Statement:

The Mu-Cow Hunter committed the Crime of Disinterest on June 7th, 1998.

See rule 422; the rules no longer allow the Mu-Cow Hunter to get away with not being subscribed to a mailing list.
Lets clean it out.

EXPULSION from the game.

There is no email address listed as being that of the Mu-Cow Hunter on any of the Registrar Pages, and the Mu-Cow Hunter never provided the Registrar with an email on eir entry to the game. Therefore, no email address belonging to the Mu-Cow Hunter exists, and so no email address belonging to the Mu-Cow Hunter is on the ackanomic or ackanomic-digest lists. Therefore e was Disinterested on June 7th, 1998, and committed the Crime of Disinterest on that date.

However, the CFJ was sent on the same day the alleged Crime took place. This means it cannot be a CFCJ, as Rule 710 specifies that:

>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 between 1 and 30 days prior to the current date. 

Hence the above TRUE judgement is actually on a CFJ, not a CFCJ.

If it is legal for me to suggest a penalty, then I concur with the suggestion of EXPULSION from the game.
However, I belive that the nature of the statement, which means this cannot be a CFCJ, means that I am unable to hand down a penalty.

Sigh. It was sent after midnight on the 8th.

I appeal it to set the record straight, and decline to hear the appeal as described in the rules. Perhaps the original judge can explain how e thought it was submitted at 21:10, when the proposal results were distributed 23: something :-) If the Court cares, I can forward it from my sent folder...

It is clear that the Mu-Cow Hunter committed the crime of disinterest on the date in question. The only issue here is whether the CFCJ was submitted in accordance with the CFCJ rules. Since the CFCJ is based on information not known until June 7, 23:57, it is quite clear that the times originally attributed to this CFJ by the acting CotC were incorrect. Indeed, one time on the most recent distribution is still incorrect -- the time it was originally erroneously assigned to ThinMan, which should be 01:48 on June 8, assuming the selection was made moments before the mail was sent. The CFCJ was submitted on June 8 and the crime occurred on June 7 as specified in the statement, so this is a valid CFCJ which should be ruled TRUE.

In any case, the actual penalty is still expulsion from the game (except that this fails to do anything since the Mu-Cow Hunter will already have been expelled by CFCJ167 before this penalty applies), and the appealer is penalized 1 point.

Call For Criminal Judgement 167 - June 8, 1998
Subject: Mu-Cow Hunter, Crime of Blatant Disregard
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent June 8, 00:52)
Judge: 867-5309 (selected June 8, 01:49)
Verdict: TRUE
[ This is not an official CFCJ but merely an opinion. For info, see what purported to be CFJ 611 ]

Statement:

The Mu-Cow Hunter committed the Crime of Blatant Disregard on June 7, 1998.

Rule 250, "Registered Players", states that "A player is any person who is registered as a player." Well, the Mu-Cow Hunter is not a person, and the clause of the Rules which may have allowed this to pass was repealed by Proposal 3158 on June 7(23:57 EDT, so just barely). So obviously the Mu-Cow Hunter, by being a player but not being a _person_, has violated Rule 250.

EXPULSION from the game of Ackanomic.

Judge claimed no reasoning was necessary.

DEDUCTION of 1000000 points from the Mu-Cow Hunter's Score.
EXPULSION from the game.

Call For Criminal Judgement 168 - June 14, 1998
Subject: Slakko's crime of Lying in Print
Initiator: 867-5309 (Sent June 14th, 1998 00:16 Acka)
Judge: Koxvolio (Selected June 14th, 1998 00:59 Acka) (declined)
2nd Judge: JT (Selected June 15th, 1998 14:39 Acka)
Verdict: TRUE
[ This is not an official CFCJ but merely an opinion. For info, see what purported to be CFJ 611 ]

Statement:

On 11 June 1998, Slakko committed the Crime of Lying in Print.

Rule 925, "The Press," states that "It is the Crime of Lying in Print for a Player to refuse to publish, in a newspaper ... a correction of a clearly false statement ... after a public request for such a correction has been made. Simply neglecting to publish such a correction for a period of three days or more after the request shall be taken as a refusal to do so."

The June 7th issue of The Infrequent Ackan contained, with respect to the currently active game of Word Un-Association, the statement "With two players having left suddenly, we are reduced to a six player situation in Game 2." The game of Word Un-Association in question began on April 3, 1998, with seven players: Mr. Tambourine Man (then The Gingham Wearer), JT, Slakko, rufus, else...if, Koxvolio, and Attila the Pun. 867-5309 (then Hubert) was refereeing. Since then, else...if has left the game, leaving six players. I, as Referee, did not receive any message constituting another player's departure. It could perhaps be argued that Slakko referred to the sudden and unintentional Vacation taken by Mr. Tambourine Man, but e certainly did not leave the game; e has only taken, well, a vacation from it.

In any case, by Slakko's own admission six players remain. The game started with seven, since the Referee was not playing and does not count as a player. Barring radical alterations to fundamental principles of basic mathematics made without my knowledge, I fail to see how seven minus two equals six. I do, however, readily admit my deficiency with regard to knowledge of things mathematical when compared to others present, and am quite willing to be shown to be wrong. Otherwise, though, I think it can be determined that the statement in question was false.

Then, on Monday, 8 June, 867-5309 stated, in the acka-games forum:

"The Infrequent Ackan claimed that two players had left to date. If so, I missed the other message and would appreciate if the editor could please let me know who the other absentee [besides else...if] is. Otherwise, I respectfully request that TIA retract the statement..."

Since Slakko never posted a clarification (although e is certainly not required to) the third sentence above can be considered to have taken effect. Thus, on June 11, it became 3 days since the request was posted, and since Slakko also did not post a retraction/apology, by Rule 925 e has Lied in Print and must be punished.

In order for this CFCJ to be judged TRUE, it is incumbent upon the judge to determine whether the statement in question is actually false (i.e., no player besides else...if has left to date and MTM's abrupt and unanticipated Vacation did not count as eir leaving the game), whether the above post from 867-5309 actually constituted a request for a retraction (it could possibly be construed that it didn't) and whether, indeed, no retraction and/or apology was/were issued. These all being the case, I would recommend the following

At least a 10-line APOLOGY.
Perhaps the TRANSFERENCE of one or more entities, at the judge's discretion (although the Feather Bed would do nicely), from the criminal to the initiator of this CFCJ to cover emotional damages.

I see no flaw in the reasoning presented by the initiator, and was unable to find any such retraction in the archives.

A 10 line PUBLIC APOLOGY

Call For Criminal Judgement 166a - June 8, 1998
Subject: Mu-Cow Hunter, Crime of Disinterest
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent June 18, 1998, 10:04 am Acka)
Judge: Koxvolio
Verdict: True

Statement:

The Mu-Cow Hunter committed the Crime of Blatant Disregard on June 7, 1998.

Rule 250, "Registered Players", states that "A player is any person who is registered as a player." Well, the Mu-Cow Hunter is not a person, and the clause of the Rules which may have allowed this to pass was repealed by Proposal 3158 on June 7(23:57 EDT, so just barely). So obviously the Mu-Cow Hunter, by being a player but not being a _person_, has violated Rule 250.

EXPULSION from the game of Ackanomic.

None

EXPULSION from the game of Ackanomic.

Call for Criminal Judgement 168a - June 22, 1998
Subject: Ignoring the Laws of Nature (else...if)
Initiator: K 2 (sent 22 June 1998, 22:27 Acka)
Judge: Slakko (chosen 23 June 1998, 02:51 Acka)
Verdict: True

Statement:

else...if committed the crime of ignoring the laws of nature on 22nd of June 1998.

On 22 Jun 1998 20:09:27 else...if posted a message that did not start with Moo! nor end with Quack Quack as per rule 836. Since e was found to be concussed at 22 Jun 1998 09:55:09 e was ignoring the laws of nature.

A fifteen line apology in the style of the late Hoover 2300.

A fifteen line apology.

I agree with the reasoning of the author of this CFCJ. The penalty is not that harsh, and for a first offence of this nature I am inclined to agree with it.

A fifteen line apology.

Call For Criminal Judgement 169 - June 26, 1998
Subject: Lack of Quack
Initiator: K 2 (sent June 26, 05:50)
Judge: JT (selected June 27, 12:04)
Verdict: True

Statement:

K 2 committed the crime of ignoring the laws of nature on 24th June 1998.

On 24 Jun 19988:22:09 K 2 posted a message that did not start with Moo! nor end with Quack Quack as per rule 836. Since e was found to be concussed at 22 Jun 1998 09:55:09 e was ignoring the laws of nature.

A fifteen line apology in the style of the late Hoover 2300.

A fifteen line apology.

None further.

A 15 line apology.

Call For Criminal Judgement 170 - June 29, 1998
Subject: Sinning
Initiator: 867-5309 (sent June 29, 17:38)
Judge: IdiotBoy (selected July 02, 17:27) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Alfvaen (Preator) (Selected 9 Jul 1998, 23:59 Acka)
Verdict: False

Statement:

867-5309 committed the Crime of Original Sin on Thursday, 25 June.

On the date in question, the accused submitted the following INVIDIOUS-delimited Sin Submission:

INVIDIOUS A new Sin has been discovered by the tireless researchers of the Ackanomic Guild of Indulgences and Other Vices. This Sin is the horrible one of Abusing One's Privilege. This Sin is committed when a player who attempts to create a new Rule via a Hearing, Discovery, Miscellaneous Submission, or in another non-Proposal manner includes text in this created Rule which purports to create, amend, or repeal any Rule other than the one being created.

{{ Append the sentence "This sentence repeals itself seven seconds after it becomes part of a Rule." to the end of Rule 611, "Le Grand Fromage." }} INVIDIOUS

The resultant Sinquisition returned a verdict of "Right up there with Disrespecting the Harfers." Hence, by R777 the text of the Sinquisition was adopted as a new Rule. The submitter was obviously guilty of the same Sin e proposed to create, that of Abusing One's Privilege, therefore also by R777 e has committed the Crime of Original Sin, Q.E.D.

Harsh! At least a 7-line APOLOGY, in accordance with R777. The TRANSFERENCE of all eir tradeable entities to the initiator of this CFCJ, including the covering of the initiator's court costs. An IMPRISONMENT of three days.

The question here is really one of when the Sin of Abusing One's Privilege came into effect. CFCJ 156 sets a clear precedent(as I intended it to)that after a Crime is created, it does not affect the Criminality of actions before that Crime's creation.

So when, precisely, did 867-5309 commit the action which is allegedly the Sin of Abusing One's Privilege? From the wording of the Sin itself:

   This Sin is committed when a player who attempts to create a new Rule
   via a Hearing, Discovery, Miscellaneous Submission, or in another
   non-Proposal manner includes text in this created Rule which purports
   to create, amend, or repeal any Rule other than the one being created.

Now, it is reasonable to assume that submitting a Sin Submission is "an attempt to create a new Rule via a Hearing"; the wording of Rule 777, which states that an eligible player "may post a message which purports to add a Rule detailing a new sin to this Rule Suite....", supports this.

So when did the inclusion of the self-deleting text that would constitute the Sin occur? One reasonable interpretation would be that the text is "included" when the original body of text to constitute the new Rule is submitted. Another would be that it occurs only when the text is included in the Rule proper, which would be when the Rule is created.

The key to choosing the interpretation, I think, is that the Sin description speaks of a _player_ including text in the Rule to be created. Now, when the Rule is actually created, it is not created by a player, but by another Rule--Rule 777, Rule 594, Rule 1250.1, etc. (Preceding rule numbers approximate, off the top of my head.) It is the text which is formed into the Rule that is created by the player.

Therefore, I consider that 867-5309 did not commit any action which was, _at the time it was committed_, a Sin.

I also note that with the date-specificity of the CFCJ, on Thursday, June 25th it was certainly not a Sin, because Rule 777.1 did not then exist, so much of the above rambling is irrelevant. So if you disagree with it, an appeal will still probably be fruitless. A CFCJ on whether the Sin was committed on June 29th would have to take it into account, however.