I’ve completely lost track of what’s going on here. Could someone give a summary? (That is, I think I understand the rule, but get lost trying to work out what happened to the gamestate tracking.)

Here’s what happened in a nutshell:

Keba accused me of being a member of the Criminal Underground at 12:30 UTC.
I accused myself of being a memberof the Criminal Underground at 13:11 UTC.
I then promptly confirmed my accusation on myself at 13:12, and Lilomar resolved it at 13:36.
I then denied Keba’s accusation at 13:46.

1. I accused Kyre of beeing in a group.
2. Kyre accues himself for being in said group.
3. Kyre denies membership in my accusation and confirms membership in his accusation.
4. Lilomar resolved my accusation. (adding Kyre 2 Treason Points)
5. Lilomar resolved his accusation. (adding Kyrie -5 and 2 Treason Points).
6. Lilomar reverted (incorrectly) the last accusation, because he thought it was illegal.
7. Kyre stated it wasn‘t (in my accusation), so Lilomar reverted the reversion.
8. Then he thought he has to revert my accusation, too, as game state has changed and Kyre is not a member anymore.
9. As Ais stated (both lilomar and me agree), this fact is unimportant. (see above)
10. Lilomar did not want to revert again.
11. I raised this CfJ.

I disagree that Keba correctly accused me (it was a false accusation) because the rest of those clauses occur when the accused either confirms or denies membership to said group. It is ambiguous, but that is the most common-sense way to interpret that rule I believe.

Furthermore, assume that it was a correct accusation. Then we would have to follow rule 2.8.1.2, part of which states that I am stripped of my group. However, I am in no group, so that clause has an undefined meaning.

(posted without reading Kyre‘s post).

Point 3/4/5 is not true, Kyre‘s right there.

Oh, and Kyre should get 4, not 2 Treason Points. It would be rather complicated to raise another CjF, mabye the High Programmer could add the 2 Treason Points using the Story Post mechanism? (in the case this CfJ is enacted)

I don’t think it’s a bug in the rules at all; accusations should be resolved from the time that they were made.

@coppro: I don’t think that makes sense. Suppose that Citizen A accuses Citizen B, and then later Citizen C accuses Citizen D. However, D responds to his accusation before B does. Should C’s accusation against D be put on hold until after A’s accusation against B is resolved?

That’s essentially the same situation we have here, except B, C, and D are the same person here.

Kyre: No, and I’m not suggesting that. Rather, I’m suggesting that the accusation’s correctness should be determined at the time it is made, not at the time that it is resolved. This is what the rules currently say and I think it’s correct.

My mistake, I misinterpreted what you meant coppro.

However, I can’t find anything in the rules that states when accusations are determined to be “correct” or not (Or even what a correct accusation is!). It seems simplest to decide if an accusation is correct when it is resolved by the high programmer - otherwise e would have to keep track of every group each accused citizen had been at the time the accusation had been formed, which would prove to be very tedious if lots of accusations are flying around and citizens change groups often.

I believe that it is the commonsense interpretation that the ambiguous wording of correctness is determines when the admin resolves the accusation.

[Kyre] “It seems simplest to decide if an accusation is correct when it is resolved by the high programmer - otherwise e would have to keep track of every group each accused citizen had been at the time the accusation had been formed, which would prove to be very tedious if lots of accusations are flying around and citizens change groups often.” Is easier for the High Programmer is not an argument imho.

My interpretation of “If a Citizen is correctly accused” is whether the accusation is correct of the time of the accusation, because of “Any Citizen may be accused ...”. This phrase defines a new term, “to accuse”. So, “if a Citizen is correctly accused”, whether the accusation _was_ right.

I agree with coppro and Keba.

The rules imply to me that correctness at the time of accusation is not mattered (the rules check to see if a citizen is “correctly accused). And now I’ve got a handle on what FOR and AGAINST actually mean here…

CPU assures all concerned Citizens that no revisions ever actually took place.

And yes, this is quite an incoherent CfJ, when it’s initially unclear what “has not been resolved correctly” means. Don’t expect every player to be as up to speed with your personal game events as you are.

[Kevan] Well, you‘re right. Would have been easier, if I‘d explained the reasons in the entire text.

And when you’re dying I’ll be still alive.