I CFJ on these statements: “Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.” [i.e. I got a pink slip] “o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan.”
I bar o from both CFJs. Arguments: I don’t believe I committed a crime. o claimed that I committed Forgery; there is no crime named “Forgery” in the ruleset, the only match in the SLR for “forgery” is the crime of Endorsing Forgery (“Ratification Without Objection” 2202/6). There are several problems with this: There is no crime named Forgery. I explicitly noted that the attempt at apathy was separate from the report, therefore (assuming that worked) it was not within a ratified document. Reports are self-ratified, not ratified without objection. Therefore, there is no evidence that I broke the rules. Even so, a Pink Slip is not appropriate. 2476/0 “Pink Slips” states that a pink slip is appropriate "for abuses of official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless the reason indicates the specific office or offices whose power was abused.” The ability to send long messages to a public forum in which one could hide a dependent action is not a power granted to the Rulekeepor by the rules; it provides an alibi, but that is not a rule-defined power. I believe it is very clear that the issuance of the Pink Slip was against the rules. However, the rules regarding Cards is a mishmash of CAN NOTs and SHALL NOTs, and I’m not sure if any of the CAN NOTs were triggered, hence the two CFJs. > On May 22, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > > I don’t think the Pink Slip is valid. > > Rule 2476/0: "A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate for abuses of > official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless the > reason indicates the specific office or offices whose power was abused.” > > The only reason being Rulekeepor aided me in this attempt at victory is that > I had an excuse to publish a huge message; the ability to publish huge > amounts of text is not a power given to the Rulekeepor by the rules. I could > have, for example, hidden the attempt to win by Apathy in a written-out > version of my Agency scam. There was no abuse of a specific power exclusive > to the Rulekeepor. > > Gaelan >> On May 21, 2017, at 10:46 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: >> >> >> On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: >> >>> The following section is not a portion of the report: >>> For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is “I intend, >>> without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself.” >>> I execute The Sentence, substituting [word] for a word >>> beginning with “ap” that is a synonym for “not caring.” >> >> This appears to be an attempt to abuse the office of Rulekeepor for personal >> gain, in the form of initiating a victory by Apathy for Gaelan while hiding >> it within the voluminous reports required of eir office. That the attempt >> may not succeed does not justify eir intentions. Accordingly, I issue Gaelan >> a Pink Slip for abuse of the office of Rulekeepor for the crime of Forgery. >> >> Gaelan: in spite of this censure, you remain Rulekeepor. I leave it to the >> discretion of Agora as a whole whether you should hold that office in light >> of this serious offence. Within the next seven days, any player may, with >> two support, take over an office which you hold. I stand aside, and will not >> support usurpation, but neither will I object. The office of Rulekeepor is >> essential to the functioning of Agora as a Nomic, and by abusing your >> authority to publish reports and compromising the trust players place in >> their content, you have put the integrity of the game at risk. >> >> -o >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
