On 6/14/20 1:39 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8412
> Title: Small Pledge Amendments
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: R. Lee
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend rule 2450 "Pledges" by inserting the following sentence after
> the words "explicitly states otherwise":
> {It is also Oathbreaking for a player to let a pledge expire without taking
> an action e pledged to do in that pledge.}
The search text is found multiple times in the rule. This rule-change is
ambiguous and is therefore void under Rule 105.
> ID: 8426
> Title: Impracticability Defense
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend 2531, "Defendant's Rights", by adding the following to the second
> numbered list as a new item immediately before the item beginning
> "it attempts to levy a fine with a value":
> "it attempts to levy a fine on a person taking an action or inaction e could
> not have avoided when exercising the highest reasonably possible standard
> of care;"
I'm not sure that this renumbers the remaining list items, so
renumbering will not be reflected in reports (unless I'm told otherwise).
> ID: 8429
> Title: Why Limit Clemency?
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> [This removes the arbitrary three blot limit on apology clemency.]
>
> Amend Rule 2557, "Removing Blots", by replacing:
>
> Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the
> investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable,
> specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology. If the
> investigator does so, the perp CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge P
> blots from emself, where P is the minimum of the value of the fine
> and 3, by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words and
> including all the specified words, explaining eir error, shame,
> remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
>
> with:
>
> Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the
> investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable,
> specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology. If the
> investigator does so, the perp CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge P
> blots from emself, where P is the value of the fine, by publishing a
> formal apology of at least 200 words and including all the specified words,
> explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for
> self-improvement.
This fails due to incorrect specification of the title of Rule 2557
(Sentencing Guidelines).
Possible source of confusion, taken from Proposal 8202, written by
Falsifian:
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8202
> Title: Police Power
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: Falsifian
> Co-authors: Jason
>
>
> In Rule 2557, replace the first paragraph with:
>
> When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand
> of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine of B on
> the perp by announcement, within the following guidelines:
>
> and add a new list item at the start of the list (that is, right after
> the first paragraph), with the text:
>
> - B is at least 1 and at most twice the base value of the
> violation.
>
> Retitle Rule 2557 to "Sentencing Guidelines".
>
> [Comment: Rule 2557 is currently titled "Removing Blots". When I tried
> to understand why, I noticed that the 2018-04-07 SLR lists two Rule
> 2557s, one of which actually is about removing blots, and the other of
> which is titled "Sentencing Guidelines". The next SLR I could find is
> published much later, 2018-10-14, and has R2557 in or close to its
> current form. I don't know exactly what happened there.]
--
Jason Cobb
