I don’t know what the implication of that is for the sentencing, but I
don’t think I’m going to wait. I’d prefer to resolve it now and avoid the
ambiguity.
Why did you use self-ratification, rather than something else like
ratification without objection?
-Aris
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify
> without any claim of error, then the information therein will be
> retroactively accurate... I think?
>
> > On May 25, 2019, at 9:31 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I accept. I'll have to read up on the relevant rules, and I don't have
> > the time at the moment. That said, this case is pretty simple, so I'll
> > probably have a verdict in the next day or two.
> >
> > -The Arbitor
> >
> >> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:54 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> If the H. Arbitor agrees, then I authorize the holder of the Office of
> >> Arbitor to act on my behalf to investigate and conclude the
> investigation
> >> of the finger pointed against me in the message quoted below, and for no
> >> other purpose.
> >>
> >>> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:02 PM omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:20 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is because
> >>> the games are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what the
> >>> gamestate of either of them is.
> >>>>
> >>>> I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no
> entities
> >>> in existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than
> those
> >>> created directly by the Rules. All switches for which the Astronomor is
> >>> recordkeepor have their default value.}
> >>>>
> >>>> I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities in
> >>> existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those
> directly
> >>> created by the Rules. All switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor
> have
> >>> their default value.}
> >>>
> >>> I Point my Finger at D. Margaux for violating rule 2143 by publishing
> >>> information that is inaccurate within two documents purporting to be
> >>> two offices' weekly reports. (The documents don't explicitly purport
> >>> to be *weekly* reports, but this can be reasonably inferred from the
> >>> attempt to deputise to publish them.)
> >>>
> >> --
> >> D. Margaux
>
