On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> Also, I will quite likely attempt to start NoVs for every occasion on
> which anyone's ever breached a rule (since the time limit) whilst
> believing themselves not to be breaching the rule at the time. The
> precedent you're setting here implies that even a single honest mistake
> in a report is illegal, and should be punished. This is a horrible,
> horrible precedent.
I still don't think the action was illegal, or at least it depends on
a subtle grammatical ambiguity.
A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation (with N support,
where N is the number of valid un-Closed Notices of Violation e
previously published during the same week, or by announcement if
N is zero) alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has
broken a Rule. A notice of violation is invalid if it lacks any
of the following information, and the lack is correctly
identified within one week after the notice is published:
(a) The identity of the Accused;
(b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question;
(c) The Rule that was allegedly broken;
(d) If the Rules specify exactly one Class-N Crime (where N is
a positive integer) as being associated with the alleged
breach, then the name of that Crime and the value of N;
otherwise, the Power of the Rule that was allegedly broken.
Who is doing the alleging, the player or the NoV? The sentence is
grammatically correct and makes sense with either referent. Consider:
"Alleging that you broke a rule, I publish a NoV: you are the Accused;
the allegedly illegal action was X; Rule X was allegedly broken."
Although I made an incorrect allegation, which violates the current
R2215, an obviously-incorrect statement would not have violated R2215
at the time of the scam, and the information in the NoV-- the identity
of the Accused, the *allegedly* illegal action, the *allegedly* broken
Rule-- is entirely correct, referring to my prior allegation.
If the NoV is doing the alleging, I agree that part of the NoV is
necessarily a claim that the player violated the rule, which would be
incorrect if e didn't.
