I deputize for the Herald to make the following announcements about NoV validity and to assign the indicated IDs to valid NoVs.
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Keba <ag...@kebay.org> wrote: > I publish a Notice of Violation alleging that Yally violated > Rule 2143, which has power 1, by failing to publish a PSM report in the > last week. This is NoV 68. It was technically invalid but the lack of a named crime was not correctly identified within 1 week. On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Sean Hunt <scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > I publish an NoV accusing Wooble of failing to publish a report of the IADoP > last week, thus violating the rule 2143, with power 1. This NoV is invalid, as the alleged act in each violates a named Crime in the rules (Tardiness), and the name of that crime and its class were not specified. This lack was correctly identified within 1 week. On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:57 PM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > actually cares. NoV: ais523 committed the Class-1 Crime of Tardiness by > failing to flip Independent players into teams as soon as possible, > violating rule 2143. This is valid NoV 69. On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > NoV: Murphy violated Rule 1868 (Power=2) by failing to assign CFJ 2853 > to a player who has favored it (Yally and omd were eligible). I close This is valid NoV 70. On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 2:54 PM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > NoV: omd violated the power-3 rule 2201 by making an inappropriate Claim > of Error, because the nature of the doubt is a matter of legal > interpretation rather than of fact. (This NoV may fail on the basis that > "inappropriate" != "illegal", but I can't think of any more sensible > interpretation there; "impossible" seems rather implausible.) This is valid NoV 71. On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 6:24 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > NoV: ais523 violated the Power-3 Rule 2170 by choosing the confusing > nickname "Distributed Proposal 6830" for a proposal. This is valid NoV 72. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote: > I publish an NoV alleging that H. Pariah Tanner L. Swett violated the > Power-1 Rule 2215 by making a public statement that e questioned > whether violating a SHALL is a rules violation when e could not > reasonably believe it to be true. Violating the SHALL in a rule is > tautologically violating the rule. This is valid NoV 73. On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Sean Hunt <scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote\ : > I publish an NoV alleging that Keba violated Rule 2143 and committed the > Class-2 Crime of Tardiness by failing to publish the List of Succession in > the week beginning on September 6 of this year. This is valid NoV 74. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:30 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > NoV: Warrigal violated Power-1 Rule 2143 by failing to include my > proposal "Erratification" in this report. This is valid NoV 75. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:02 PM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > NoV: Warrigal (the Pariah) violated the Power-2 rule 2143 by publishing > information that was misleading, via failing to mention that the given > Distributability for Distributed Proposal 6830 was potentially, or even > probably, wrong. It is usual for officers to mention disputes about > report contents, or at least to follow the precedent of relevant CFJs, > rather than to state the opposite. I believe Warrigal violated the rule > in question even if the report turns out to be correct. This is NoV 76. It's valid by default; the incorrect Power for R2143 wasn't correctly identified within 1 week. On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 1:14 PM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > NoV: Warrigal violated the power-1 rule 2215 by stating that there was > no message in which the proposal was made distributable, when in fact > there was such a message; it is not reasonable for the Promotor to > believe the message does not exist when it's eir job to track it. This is valid NoV 77. On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote: > I publish an NoV alleging that Keba violated Rule 2143, committing the > Class 1 crime of Tardiness, by failing to publish the Air Traffic > Controller's weekly report last week. > > I publish an NoV alleging that Keba violated Rule 2143, committing the > Class 1 crime of Tardiness, by failing to publish the Granulator's > weekly report last week. These are valid NoVs 78 and 79, respectively. On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote: > I publish an NoV alleging that Keba violated the power-1 rule R2143 > and committed the class 2 crime of Tardiness by failing to publish the > PSM's report last week. This is valid NoV 80. On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:34 AM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > But welcome to Agora! Since I think it would be a fine tradition to > NoV new players, although I can rarely find any cause to, here's one: > Bucky violated Power-3 Rule 2170 by selecting the confusing nickname > "John Smith". (You should probably contest this.) This is valid NoV 81. On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > I contest this. Now, I publish this NoV: > a. omd. > b. issuing an NoV with knowingly incorrect information (it is painfully > clear that by saying "hi I'm Bucky" that Bucky did not in fact select > the nickname "John Smith" - none but the lowest level of hurried moron > could call this information correct). > c. Rule 2230. > d. Class-4 Crime of Libel. This is valid NoV 82. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote: > I publish an NoV alleging that ehird violated the Power-1 Rule 2215 by > making a statement e couldn't have reasonably believed to be true in > the above-quoted message. This is valid NoV 83. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:57 AM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > NoV: Wooble violated the power-1 rule 2215 by purporting to deputize for > Notary, despite the fact that all players SHOULD know (and it's > unreasonable not to believe) that you can't deputize for a nonexistent > office. This is valid NoV 84. I close NoVs 66, 74, 78, and 79. As a result of this, coppro gains 1 rest and Keba gains 6.
