Zefram wrote:
I have a problem with your criterion for the defence. It appears to make
ignorance of the law an excuse, even wilful ignorance. Agoran law is not
very large, and I think it is reasonable to require that everyone subject
to it be aware of all relevant parts, other than the rare situations
where we're *all* mistaken as to what the law is. You need to tighten
the condition so that "I didn't bother looking at the result of this
week's proposals" doesn't qualify.
Willful ignorance should not count as reasonable.
I don't think this separate verdict is necessary, anyway. If done right,
it's a subset of EXCUSED. Doesn't hurt to explicate this particular
excuse, of course.
Upon further reflection, this suggests adding "reasonably" to the
existing definition of EXCUSED, to avoid interpretations along the
lines of "you could have escaped that catch-22 by deregistering".
* FIFTY DOLLARS AND TIME SERVED, appropriate for rule breaches
of small consequence. Has effects as defined by other rules.
Yuck.
Did they never show reruns of "Night Court" over there?
Amend the rule "Marks" to ding the ninny 5 Marks of some color (which?)
(can't do this directly in R1504 due to Power).
Put an enabling clause in the "Marks" rule and add a "FINE" sentence
with variable quantity of marks to be decided by the judge.
What limits would you suggest? This would presumably be worded
similarly to the length-of-chokey and length-of-exile clauses.
