I vote PRESENT On Mon., 3 Aug. 2020, 3:01 am Kerim Aydin via agora-official, < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > Indictment Decision 00000000000001-A > Resolved: That R. Lee be convicted (found guilty) for breaching eir > pledge, "Honor in Scammery". > > Indictment Decision 00000000000001-B > Resolved: That the indictment fine of 1 blot, as issued by the Referee, > be accepted. > > I hereby initiate a referendum on each of the above Decisions. Each > decision has a voting method of AI-majority, with AI=1.5. The vote > collector is the Arbitor, the quorum is 6, valid options are FOR and > AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). > > As a guide, ordered pairs of votes for (A,B) above have the following > meaning: > > (FOR, FOR): Guilty, and 1 blot is an appropriate penalty. > > (FOR, AGAINST): Guilty, but issue a different penalty (higher or lower). > > (AGAINST, FOR): Not Guilty, but if found guilty by the total votes, 1 blot > is appropriate. > > (AGAINST, AGAINST): Not Guilty, but if found guilty by total votes, issue > a different penalty (higher or lower). > > > In the ~10 days since the indictment was issued, the defendant has not > provided a defense. The following contains the details of the indictment: > > On 7/22/2020 10:02 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business > wrote: > > On 7/22/20 12:11 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > >> > >> On 7/22/2020 8:26 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > >>> On 7/22/20 2:37 AM, N. S. via agora-business wrote: > >>>>> "Honor in scammery" created by R. Lee > >>>> > >>>> I point my finger at myself for violating this pledge > >>> Because breach of this fine is a class 1000 crime, an Indictment will > >>> be > >>> needed here. G., do you have a preference for how many blots to impose > >>> as the aggrieved party? > >>> > >> > >> I was a full conspirator in the scam underlying this, the ability to > >> fulfill the pledge depended on the scam working, and e made a full > >> attempt > >> to fulfill the conditions (e published a message that would have kept > >> the > >> pledge, during the time we thought the scam had worked). The fact that > >> e > >> didn't a put a "this is void if the scam fails" (which was a common- > >> sense > >> understanding between us) isn't injurious at all, from my personal POV. > >> > >> Any punishment above a trivial level (I dunno, 1 or 2) would be > >> leveraging > >> this pledge to punish em for the scam attempt overall IMO; and nch and > >> I > >> were equal partners in the conspiracy. > >> > >> -G. > >> > > > > Given that G. is in agreement with a minimal fine, I issue an Indictment > > finding R. Lee guilty of breaching eir pledge, "Honor in Scammery", > > specifying a fine of 1 blot. I recommend that e be found guilty and the > > Indictment imposed only because e clearly breached the pledge and e > > should have been more careful in drafting it. > > >
