On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:26 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > > =================== CFJ 2488 (Interest Index = 2) ==================== > > > > The prohibition on excessive Notices of Violation in rule 2230 > > is ineffective due to rule 101 > > > > ======================================================================== > > We had this argument back when excess CFJs were first introduced, > regarding 101(ii), the right to CFJ. I believe the consensus on the DF > was that it could take precedence in the right circumstances (ie, there > were >N genuine controversies that couldn't wait until next week), but > that the circumstances in which there was a genuine conflict would very > seldom come up.
It's slightly different in this case. 101(ii) is the right to resolve matters of controversy; if more than five things are genuinely controversial, other people will file the CFJs in question. However, the right to participate in the fora is rather more general than that; precedent is that you have a right to post anything game-relevant to the fora that could sensibly count as participating in it. The issue is really whether it's POSSIBLE to post an excess NoV. If it is, then that implies that NoVs are some sort of thing that exist platonically, which you can publish whenever you like to make them game-relevant, and publishing an NoV is certianly a participatory action. If it isn't, then the prohibition is unlikely to be effective just because there would be platonically no way to commit the crime. -- ais523
