On Jan 26, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 23:26 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Wooble wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:28 PM, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear
<geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement
to CFJ
2316 as soon as possible after e become assigned to it as Judge.
comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement
to CFJ
2317 as soon as possible after e become assigned to it as Judge.
I contest these. The accusations are probably accurate, but four
rests is an inappropriate penalty for failing to judge CFJs.
I initiate criminal CFJs regarding both of these NoVs. I recommend
double rests; comex is clearly GUILTY.
Gratuituous: comex didn't dispute eir guilt, only the extent to
which e
should be punished. This early in the NoV era, I think this
counts as
reasonable dispute rather than obstruction.
Note that the intent of the proposal was that contesting NoVs due to a
belief that their punishment is unjust is valid, and a reasonable
use of
contestment. There is also precedent, in OscarMeyr punishing ehird
with
APOLOGY rather than SILENCE/6 for eir attempt to change eir name to
the
null string.
s/OscarMeyr/Taral/
CFJ 2347
I called CFJ 2303, an inquiry CFJ into the success of ehird's
attempted renaming.
-----
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
