On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:57 PM, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote: > E could avoid breaching the rules by making a proposal to remove stale > proposals from the pool.
I did in fact do just that, assuming that I'd get an objection. However, when I didn't, I figured trying to get an AI-3 proposal passed was a lot harder than resolving my intent. For the record, I'm not claiming EXCUSED or UNAWARE, but UNIMPUGNED; the first NoV (which isn't currently the subject of a CFJ) because the alleged crime was missing the first element or the crime, that I be acting knowingly when I posted my intent to ratify (as I believed the proposal pool to contain only the stated proposals at that time, assuming Zefram had kept things orderly), and for the 2nd NoV because knowingly ratifying an incorrect false report dos not violate R2202 if a 'corrected' report cannot be created with reasonable effort. Note that this assumes 'corrected' means 'made correct' rather than 'made closer to correct'. In any case, if I'm GUILTY I believe 8 rests would be an excessive punishment.
