I intend, with two support, to file a Motion to Reconsider on this
case because the judge's arguments fail to address a significant
portion of the judgment.
In particular, it seems to me rather strange that a Card issuance can
simultaneously be INEFFECTIVE and ILLEGAL, because the Card issuance
either did not happen (is INEFFECTIVE) or did happen, but contravened
the rules (is ILLEGAL).
While it's possible for the rules to make a failed attempt to perform
an action, I see no such language in Rule 2426. So the lack of
discussion on the INEFFECTIVE aspect of the case seems fatal to the
judgement.
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 18:21 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
<p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
<mailto:p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com>> wrote:
ILLEGAL and INEFFECTIVE. I was just being explicit about the ILLEGAL.
On 10/08/2017 05:45 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> Illegal or ineffective? They are different, especially in the
card rules,
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> <p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
<mailto:p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I find CFJ 3566 TRUE. The issued card was not appropriate
because no action
>> was taken. Due to its inappropriateness, it was ILLEGAL as a
violation of
>> Rule 2426. However, I believe given the nature of the lateness
of the
>> report, a serious card was warranted and I recommend that it be
issued. I
>> would also like to specify that the Caller's Argument that his
argument is
>> supported by game custom should not be taken into account in
future card
>> issuances because card issuances are not bound by game custom.
>>
>>
>> On 10/01/2017 01:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>
>>> I number the below case and sign it as indicated. -G.
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================== CFJ 3566
==============================
>>>
>>> The Pink Slip below issued is both INEFFECTIVE and
ILLEGAL.
>>>
>>>
========================================================================
>>>
>>> Caller: V.J. Rada
>>>
>>> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>>
>>>
========================================================================
>>>
>>> History:
>>>
>>> Called by V.J. Rada: 27 Sep 2017
>>>
>>>
========================================================================
>>>
>>> Caller's Evidence:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Owen Jacobson
<o...@grimoire.ca <mailto:o...@grimoire.ca>> wrote:
>>>> As it happens, I have just enough cards left to deal with
both this and
>>>> Alexis’ finger before I run out for the week, and now that
the proposal
>>>> fixing the “or” in Vigilante Justice has been assessed,
finger-pointing
>>>> actually somewhat works again. Hooray!
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin
<ke...@u.washington.edu <mailto:ke...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is absurd. Was going to let it pass, but I point the
Finger at
>>>>> Nichdel
>>>>> for late Assessment of Decision to Adopt proposal 7876.
>>>>>
>>>>> I note, for the purposes of determining carding, that this
lateness had
>>>>> a
>>>>> direct and material impact on my own earnings as well as others.
>>>> And on mine, which causes a minor conflict of interest.
However, no rule
>>>> allows me to recuse myself, and this is not a finger-pointing
related the
>>>> official duties or powers of the Referee, so the Arbitor
cannot take over.
>>>> I’ll have to do my best.
>>>>
>>>> Proposal 7876 was distributed on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 01:19:41
UTC. As voting
>>>> was not extended, voting ended at Mon, 18 Sep 2017 01:19:41
UTC, exactly 7d
>>>> after distribution (rule 107, “Initiating Agoran Decisions").
>>>>
>>>> nichdel assessed it at Tue, 26 Sep 2017 19:49:53 UTC. 8d, 18h
30m 12s
>>>> elapsed from the close of voting to the proposal's
assessment. Rule 208
>>>> (“Resolving Agoran Decisions”) states:
>>>>
>>>>> The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN
resolve it by
>>>>> announcement, indicating the outcome. If it was required to
be initiated,
>>>>> then e SHALL resolve it in a timely fashion after the end of
the voting
>>>>> period.
>>>> nichdel, as Assessor, was the vote collector for the Agoran
Decision to
>>>> adopt proposal 7876. As more than seven days had elapsed
(rule 1023, “Common
>>>> Definitions”), e did not do so in a timely fashion, and has
violated the
>>>> above clause of rule 208.
>>>>
>>>> G.’s allegation that the late assessment has a direct and
material impact
>>>> on gameplay is compelling. Furthermore, beyond the effects G.
identifies,
>>>> Assessment directly affects the adoption of rule changes,
which are
>>>> fundamental to Agora. However, I believe a Yellow Card would be
>>>> inappropriate, and unduly punitive. Instead, I note that
nichdel delayed
>>>> assessment for reasons e spelled out in a message to
agora-discussion:
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 20, 2017, at 4:07 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com
<mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Due to a stressful trip coming up this weekend and the size
of the
>>>>> current batch of proposals, I'm unlikely to be able to
assess until mid
>>>>> next week. If there's interest, I could create an agency
that allows
>>>>> someone else to assess.
>>>> nichdel clearly delayed assessment for eir own gain, vis., to
gain
>>>> additional time and attention to dedicate to a personal trip.
As such, e has
>>>> abused the office of Assessor, and I hereby issue em a Pink
Slip by summary
>>>> judgement.
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin
<ke...@u.washington.edu <mailto:ke...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I note to the Referee, so e can feel informed and NOT
believe that there
>>>>> are
>>>>> no rules violations this week, that Nichdel was similarly
late on
>>>>> proposals
>>>>> 7877-7898.
>>>> So noted.
>>>>
>>>> -o
>>>>
>>>
========================================================================
>>>
>
>
