omd wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> AFFIRM.
>>
>> I think both the judge's opinion and the gratuitous arguments provided
>> by ais523 in response to the defendant's appeal are generally reasonable.
>
> Gratuitous:
>
> I don't (especially since some of ais523's gratuitous arguments
> contradicted the judge's opinion)...
>
> ais523's opinion and mine differ mainly in that e thinks the statement
> in the document is subjunctive (if X, it is necessarily true that Y),
> while I think the document is indicative (it is not actually true that
> X and not Y).
>
> I always intended for it to be indicative, because the subjunctive
> version of the statement would be somewhat nonsensical / impossible,
> and might not work as expected to ratify. I'm not entirely sure such
> a statement can actually be expressed in English... but I'm also not
> sure that it can't, as the analogy of a prophecy seems reasonable. In
> any case, the wording of the document is awkward specifically because
> I wanted to avoid a subjunctive interpretation.
>
> Again, the test for GUILTY is not that the arguments against me are
> reasonable (sufficiently more reasonable than mine to be considered
> correct), but that my arguments are inherently unreasonable.
Gratuitous:
As the third panelist in 2926a, I can no longer fulfill my Rule 911
duty to opine without violating my Rule 2157 duty to prevent the
panel from violating Rule 1727. How this all interacts with Rule
1504(e)'s "equal or greater severity" is open to interpretation at
various points. Given that the other panelists have already opined
AFFIRM, and that the actual punishment may be irrelevant in practice
anyway because omd (a) is deregistered and (b) can get around it if
eir dictatorship has laddered up to Power >= 2, I'll stick with an
unofficial opinion for now.
omd has admitted that the statement would be false if certain events
occurred, e.g. if the document was ratified after Proposal 6938
passed. Game custom is that such statements are treated as incorrect,
e.g. some CFJs about hypothetical situations have basically been judged
"true only if X, so not always true, so FALSE".
Examining the points that Rule 1504 requires to be found true beyond
reasonable doubt:
(a) omd violated the rules as described. Yes, per game custom as
noted above.
(b) Within past 90 days. Not disputed.
(c) No double jeopardy. Disputed elsewhere (omd dinged emself for
a small Rest penalty for some aspect of the situation), but
generally rejected as not targeting substantially the same
actoin as this case.
(d) omd could not have reasonably believed that eir action was
legal. Yes, e's been around long enough that e should have known
about the relevant game custom.
(e) omd could have reasonably avoided etc.. Yes, e could have
acknowledged the relevant game custom when announcing intent,
which would have triggered Rule 2202's "unless" and made eir
action unambiguously legal.
Accordingly, I unofficially opine AFFIRM.
