BUS: Finger Pointing [attn. Referee]
I point my finger at myself for Tardiness, and more specifically for failing to publish a Promotor's report on time. The failure arose from ordinary negligence, but I could have gotten the report out easily if I had prioritized it earlier in the week. -Aspen
Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] Re: Expedited export
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 01:49:31PM -0500, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > On 11/20/20 12:08 AM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 04:52:35AM +, Falsifian via agora-business > > wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 05:42:00PM +, Falsifian via agora-business > >> wrote: > >>> I intend, with notice, to deregister Tyler. > >>> I intend, with notice, to deregister Zyborg. > >>> I intend, with notice, to deregister Fred. > >>> I intend, with notice, to deregister Shelvacu. > >> > >> Having given notice: > >> > >> I deregister Tyler. > >> I deregister Zyborg. > >> I deregister Fred. > >> I deregister Shelvacu. > >> > >> RIP > > > > I Point my Finger at myself, Falsifian, for failing to deregister the > > above players in a timely fashion after my last Registrar weekly report, > > as required under the last paragraph of Rule 2574. > > I find this finger-pointing to be shenanigans. I think that we need to > clarify the rules on this, but I decided to interpret it this way > because of how the alternative interpretation could play out in other > situations. Feel free to CFJ if you feel otherwise. I think the zombie rules are on their way out, so that rule text will likely be rewritten soon. -- Falsifian
Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] Re: Expedited export
On 11/20/20 12:08 AM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 04:52:35AM +, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 05:42:00PM +, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: >>> I intend, with notice, to deregister Tyler. >>> I intend, with notice, to deregister Zyborg. >>> I intend, with notice, to deregister Fred. >>> I intend, with notice, to deregister Shelvacu. >> >> Having given notice: >> >> I deregister Tyler. >> I deregister Zyborg. >> I deregister Fred. >> I deregister Shelvacu. >> >> RIP > > I Point my Finger at myself, Falsifian, for failing to deregister the > above players in a timely fashion after my last Registrar weekly report, > as required under the last paragraph of Rule 2574. I find this finger-pointing to be shenanigans. I think that we need to clarify the rules on this, but I decided to interpret it this way because of how the alternative interpretation could play out in other situations. Feel free to CFJ if you feel otherwise. > > Arguments: > > I'm not sure whether I'm guilty here. From Rule 2574: > >> Any player CAN, with notice: >> - If a zombie has been a zombie for the past 90 days and not had >> Agora for a master during any of that time, transfer the >> talisman for em to Agora; >> - If a player possesses more than one talisman for persons other >> than emself, specify and transfer one of those talismans to >> Agora; >> - Deregister a zombie whose resale value is zero and whose >> master is Agora. >> >> The Registrar SHALL track the date for each zombie on which Agora >> was most recently eir master. The Registrar SHALL perform all >> POSSIBLE actions in the preceding paragraph in a timely fashion >> after first reporting their possibility via the facts in eir >> weekly report. > > Certainly I (unintentionally) failed to perform the actions within 7 > days of my last Registrar report: report published 2020-11-12; actions > taken by announcement 2020-11-20. What's not clear to me is whether the > actions were POSSIBLE. R2152 defines "POSSIBLE" as "Attempts to perform > the described action are successful". Immediately after publishing my > report, no such attempt could be successful because I had not given > notice, so arguably, the actions were not POSSIBLE when I published the > report. > > One counter-argument to this is that the SHALL became binding 4 days > after I announced intent, because it became POSSIBLE then. It's still > questionable whether I "reported [the actions'] possibility" in my > weekly report since they weren't actually POSSIBLE when the report > was published. > > Another counter-argument is that announcing intent, waiting between 4 > and 14 days, then taking the action by announcement together constitutes > an "attempt", so the actions were indeed POSSIBLE when I published the > report. > -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
BUS: [Finger Pointing] Re: Expedited export
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 04:52:35AM +, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 05:42:00PM +, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > > I intend, with notice, to deregister Tyler. > > I intend, with notice, to deregister Zyborg. > > I intend, with notice, to deregister Fred. > > I intend, with notice, to deregister Shelvacu. > > Having given notice: > > I deregister Tyler. > I deregister Zyborg. > I deregister Fred. > I deregister Shelvacu. > > RIP I Point my Finger at myself, Falsifian, for failing to deregister the above players in a timely fashion after my last Registrar weekly report, as required under the last paragraph of Rule 2574. Arguments: I'm not sure whether I'm guilty here. From Rule 2574: > Any player CAN, with notice: > - If a zombie has been a zombie for the past 90 days and not had > Agora for a master during any of that time, transfer the > talisman for em to Agora; > - If a player possesses more than one talisman for persons other > than emself, specify and transfer one of those talismans to > Agora; > - Deregister a zombie whose resale value is zero and whose > master is Agora. > > The Registrar SHALL track the date for each zombie on which Agora > was most recently eir master. The Registrar SHALL perform all > POSSIBLE actions in the preceding paragraph in a timely fashion > after first reporting their possibility via the facts in eir > weekly report. Certainly I (unintentionally) failed to perform the actions within 7 days of my last Registrar report: report published 2020-11-12; actions taken by announcement 2020-11-20. What's not clear to me is whether the actions were POSSIBLE. R2152 defines "POSSIBLE" as "Attempts to perform the described action are successful". Immediately after publishing my report, no such attempt could be successful because I had not given notice, so arguably, the actions were not POSSIBLE when I published the report. One counter-argument to this is that the SHALL became binding 4 days after I announced intent, because it became POSSIBLE then. It's still questionable whether I "reported [the actions'] possibility" in my weekly report since they weren't actually POSSIBLE when the report was published. Another counter-argument is that announcing intent, waiting between 4 and 14 days, then taking the action by announcement together constitutes an "attempt", so the actions were indeed POSSIBLE when I published the report. -- Falsifian
Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] Tardiness
On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 11:48:25AM -0500, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > On 11/7/20 11:54 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > > I Point my Finger at myself (Falsifian) for failing to fulfill my duty > > under R1885, which was to announce this month within the week of Chaos > > that no zombie auction is necessary. > > > > (I did announce it, but the week of Discord had already begun.) > > > > I impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying an unforgivable fine of 1 > blot for this crime. I grant myself a Justice Card (for initiating the most successful finger-pointings). -- Falsifian
Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] Tardiness
On 11/7/20 11:54 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > I Point my Finger at myself (Falsifian) for failing to fulfill my duty > under R1885, which was to announce this month within the week of Chaos > that no zombie auction is necessary. > > (I did announce it, but the week of Discord had already begun.) > I impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying an unforgivable fine of 1 blot for this crime. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
BUS: [Finger Pointing] Tardiness
I Point my Finger at myself (Falsifian) for failing to fulfill my duty under R1885, which was to announce this month within the week of Chaos that no zombie auction is necessary. (I did announce it, but the week of Discord had already begun.) -- Falsifian
Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] CFJ 3884 Assigned to Aris
On 10/10/20 3:26 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 12:55:39AM -0700, Aris Merchant via agora-business > wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:24 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official >> wrote: >>> >>> The below CFJ is 3884. I assign it to Aris. >>> >>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3884 >>> >>> === CFJ 3884 === >>> >>> The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment is a forum. >>> >>> == >> >> I file a motion to extend this CFJ. A draft verdict, which I do not >> assign, follows. > > I Point my Finger at Aris for failing to judge CFJ 3884 within the > extended deadline. > > Purely in the spirit of trying to get a Justice Card; no rebuke > intended. > I find this finger-pointing to be shenanigans. I think the most logical and common interpretation of "extend" is that it extends it from the prior point, but I'm not particularly attached to that if you want to CFJ. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: (@referee) Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] CFJ 3884 Assigned to Aris
On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 01:45:14PM -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
>
> On 10/10/2020 1:03 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> >> I Point my Finger at Aris for failing to judge CFJ 3884 within the
> >> extended deadline.
> >>
> >> Purely in the spirit of trying to get a Justice Card; no rebuke
> >> intended.
> >
> > Arguments: This isn't late. The deadline was extended by a week, and
> > it hasn't been two weeks since the original deadline.
>
> Note to referee: When I entered the extension last week, I wondered if
> the extension language in R591 ("Doing so extends eir judgement deadline
> for that case by one week.") meant extend 1 week from the original
> deadline or extend 1 week from the time of filing for an extension. Aris
> is on time by the first reading but late by the second. I assumed the
> first reading was correct (and that was my intent in authoring the
> proposal), but the wording is a bit ambiguous.
>
> -G.
The first reading (where Aris isn't late) seems like the obvious one now
that you two point it out. I didn't really think it through.
--
Falsifian
(@referee) Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] CFJ 3884 Assigned to Aris
On 10/10/2020 1:03 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
>> I Point my Finger at Aris for failing to judge CFJ 3884 within the
>> extended deadline.
>>
>> Purely in the spirit of trying to get a Justice Card; no rebuke
>> intended.
>
> Arguments: This isn't late. The deadline was extended by a week, and
> it hasn't been two weeks since the original deadline.
Note to referee: When I entered the extension last week, I wondered if
the extension language in R591 ("Doing so extends eir judgement deadline
for that case by one week.") meant extend 1 week from the original
deadline or extend 1 week from the time of filing for an extension. Aris
is on time by the first reading but late by the second. I assumed the
first reading was correct (and that was my intent in authoring the
proposal), but the wording is a bit ambiguous.
-G.
Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] CFJ 3884 Assigned to Aris
On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 12:26 PM Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 12:55:39AM -0700, Aris Merchant via agora-business > wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:24 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official > > wrote: > > > > > > The below CFJ is 3884. I assign it to Aris. > > > > > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3884 > > > > > > === CFJ 3884 === > > > > > > The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment is a forum. > > > > > > == > > > > I file a motion to extend this CFJ. A draft verdict, which I do not > > assign, follows. > > I Point my Finger at Aris for failing to judge CFJ 3884 within the > extended deadline. > > Purely in the spirit of trying to get a Justice Card; no rebuke > intended. Arguments: This isn't late. The deadline was extended by a week, and it hasn't been two weeks since the original deadline. -Aris
BUS: [Finger Pointing] CFJ 3884 Assigned to Aris
On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 12:55:39AM -0700, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:24 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official > wrote: > > > > The below CFJ is 3884. I assign it to Aris. > > > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3884 > > > > === CFJ 3884 === > > > > The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment is a forum. > > > > == > > I file a motion to extend this CFJ. A draft verdict, which I do not > assign, follows. I Point my Finger at Aris for failing to judge CFJ 3884 within the extended deadline. Purely in the spirit of trying to get a Justice Card; no rebuke intended. -- Falsifian
Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] Pineapples aren't people
On 6/11/20 6:08 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: I point my finger at the H. Arbitor for failing to assign a judge to CFJ 1706 in a timely fashion, although I request that the H. Referee not punish em too harshly. CFJ 1706 [0] was judged by the Pineapple Partnership, which at the time, was legally a person and thus eligible to judge judicial cases. However, Rule 869 does not currently define any partnerships as persons: Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. Rule 991 says: Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any person or "unassigned" (default). and When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion. Because the Pineapple Partnership is not a person, at some point in the past, CFJ 1706's Judge came to have the default value of "unassigned" by Rule 2162: If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible value, it comes to have its default value. Seeing as CFJ 1706 is unassigned, the Arbitor SHALL assign an eligible player to it in a timely fashion. E has not done so in the previous week, and this has failed to meet this requirement. [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1706 Having investigated the matter and reviewed the discussion on the subject, I believe that G. did not commit a crime because either the time limit has not expired or the time limit expired long before e was Arbitor. I think the second interpretation is more likely. As a result, I find this finger-pointing to be SHENANIGANS. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] Pineapples aren't people
On 6/11/20 6:29 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > Gratuitous: > > The Pineapple Partnership was judged to be a person at the time the case > was assigned, and the Rules of the time made em a person [cites later]. > So it was a legal judgement of the time (which closed the case). Making > the PP cease to be a person (which happened later) did not re-open the case. The case being "open" is orthogonal to it being "unassigned". Since Judge can only have values of persons and "unassigned", and the Pineapple Partnership is unambiguously not a person now (and is the only other value the Judge of the CFJ might have), it is definitely unassigned now. > > Secondarily, if e wasn't a person, than the deadline for assignment long > passed and I wasn't the Arbitor then. R991 says "in a timely fashion" for > the assignment but the question is, "in a timely fashion after what > exactly?" The only reasonable answer is "after it first comes to be > unassgined" (if the "when" is evaluated continuously, the "timely fashion" > would never end). > > -G. I'm not sure about this point. I think the phrasing is weird with the time limit not having a definite start point. This one might need an actual CFJ to figure out (and we might want to clarify the phrasing regardless). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: [Finger Pointing] Pineapples aren't people
Gratuitous: The Pineapple Partnership was judged to be a person at the time the case was assigned, and the Rules of the time made em a person [cites later]. So it was a legal judgement of the time (which closed the case). Making the PP cease to be a person (which happened later) did not re-open the case. Secondarily, if e wasn't a person, than the deadline for assignment long passed and I wasn't the Arbitor then. R991 says "in a timely fashion" for the assignment but the question is, "in a timely fashion after what exactly?" The only reasonable answer is "after it first comes to be unassgined" (if the "when" is evaluated continuously, the "timely fashion" would never end). -G. On 6/11/2020 3:08 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I point my finger at the H. Arbitor for failing to assign a judge to CFJ > 1706 in a timely fashion, although I request that the H. Referee not > punish em too harshly. > > CFJ 1706 [0] was judged by the Pineapple Partnership, which at the time, > was legally a person and thus eligible to judge judicial cases. However, > Rule 869 does not currently define any partnerships as persons: > >> Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and >> communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to >> the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. > > > Rule 991 says: > >> Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any >> person or "unassigned" (default). > > and > >> When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any >> eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so >> in a timely fashion. > > > Because the Pineapple Partnership is not a person, at some point in the > past, CFJ 1706's Judge came to have the default value of "unassigned" by > Rule 2162: > >> If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible value, it >> comes to have its default value. > > > Seeing as CFJ 1706 is unassigned, the Arbitor SHALL assign an eligible > player to it in a timely fashion. E has not done so in the previous > week, and this has failed to meet this requirement. > > > [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1706 >
BUS: [Finger Pointing] Pineapples aren't people
I point my finger at the H. Arbitor for failing to assign a judge to CFJ 1706 in a timely fashion, although I request that the H. Referee not punish em too harshly. CFJ 1706 [0] was judged by the Pineapple Partnership, which at the time, was legally a person and thus eligible to judge judicial cases. However, Rule 869 does not currently define any partnerships as persons: > Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and > communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to > the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. Rule 991 says: > Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any > person or "unassigned" (default). and > When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any > eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so > in a timely fashion. Because the Pineapple Partnership is not a person, at some point in the past, CFJ 1706's Judge came to have the default value of "unassigned" by Rule 2162: > If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible value, it > comes to have its default value. Seeing as CFJ 1706 is unassigned, the Arbitor SHALL assign an eligible player to it in a timely fashion. E has not done so in the previous week, and this has failed to meet this requirement. [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1706 -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Finger Pointing At Cuddlebeam
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 5:41 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:46 PM Rebecca via agora-business > wrote: > > > > I point my finger at Cuddlebeam > > > > Literally everything in eir most recent contract constitutes Faking, > > specifically by intentionally misleading Agorans into believing that eir > > items would have any effect for profit. > > > > -- > > From R. Lee > > I find this finger pointing to be shenanigans. I accept Jason's > explanation, and I think that any intent to mislead was obvious and > therefore ineffective, negating itself. TTttPF
Re: BUS: Finger Pointing At Cuddlebeam
Hi, I'm Cuddlebeam, humble Agoran occultist. I understand the concerns, as the occult often works in mysterious ways, but there is nothing misleading in my shop. Please allow me to prove it for you: It is *clearly* labelled as an *occult* shop, and that their effects are, verbatim: "mystical in nature". This isn't 'mystical' in a whimsical RPG sense, but the real-life meaning of mystical. Literally mystical. Mystical, like how Google defines it: 1: relating to mystics or religious mysticism. 2: inspiring a sense of spiritual mystery, awe, and fascination. So, I would definitely merit No Faking if my products indeed DIDN'T work by a mystical principle. But, the fact is that they do work by that principle. And that's what makes them so powerful. And since it's by this spirituality and transcendence that they work, as it's clear by the contract which allows my shop to exist in this particular universe and timeline, there is no faking. On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:46 AM Rebecca via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I point my finger at Cuddlebeam > > Literally everything in eir most recent contract constitutes Faking, > specifically by intentionally misleading Agorans into believing that eir > items would have any effect for profit. > > -- > From R. Lee >
Re: BUS: Finger Pointing At Cuddlebeam
On 6/8/20 9:45 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > I point my finger at Cuddlebeam > > Literally everything in eir most recent contract constitutes Faking, > specifically by intentionally misleading Agorans into believing that eir > items would have any effect for profit. > Did e really have the intent to mislead though? It was pretty clear that it was just for fun, and the contract specified no actual changes to the gamestate of its products... -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Finger Pointing At Cuddlebeam
On 6/8/2020 6:45 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > I point my finger at Cuddlebeam > > Literally everything in eir most recent contract constitutes Faking, > specifically by intentionally misleading Agorans into believing that eir > items would have any effect for profit. Gratuitous: As a paying customer I am fully satisfied that my product worked wholly as expected.
BUS: Finger Pointing At Cuddlebeam
I point my finger at Cuddlebeam Literally everything in eir most recent contract constitutes Faking, specifically by intentionally misleading Agorans into believing that eir items would have any effect for profit. -- >From R. Lee
Re: BUS: Finger Pointing
This is a 200 word apology for purposes of expunging that blot. I still have more other blots which it is too late for me to expunge. RIP. Agoran Sillyness is a heavy responsibility. I took that responsibility onto myself when I decided to become the Silly Person. However, I clearly had no leg to stand on when decrying the lack of Silly proposals, because I failed to pend one myself. I for one think that Sillyness should be repealed, but however little regard we hold those rules in, we must, of course, follow them anyway. Sillyness is a rule that may have great value, even. It is because of people like me failing to submit proposals that the rule is held in such low regard. I am therefore ardently remorseful, shameful, etc. Only this apology can rectify this clearly terrible situation. I suppose this apology itself would have been much better had I attempted to make it in concert with the Sillyness rules. I therefore offer the following limerick. There once was a man: V.J. Rada He made Agora slightly harder He failed to submit Sillyness? Not one bit Even though he took the job with great ardor In conclusion, it is because of sods like me refusing to use perfectly legitimate game mechanics that we feel the need to repeal them. Except Regulations. I voted against them at the start, and it will be my pleasure to vote against them again. On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Ned Strange wrote: > oh, sorry. > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> Shennanigans. Due to the Treasuror not being a defined office (a bugfix for >> that is in last week's proposal distribution). It would have been nice >> for Gaelan to report informally but oh well. >> >> The Assessor doesn't have a report does e, just vote reporting right? What >> info are you thinking about? >> >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: >>> I point my finger at the Treasuror for failing to publish eir weekly >>> report since Apr 2 >>> >>> Also I think the Assessor missed eirs? I would like my assets back etc. >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada >>> >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: BUS: Finger Pointing
Factually correct. Very low game consequences. I levy a 1-blot fine,
forgivable with
apology word list {only, a, little, bit, silly, in, one, leg}.
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> I also point my finger at myself for failing to pend a Silly Proposal last
> week.
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Ned Strange wrote:
> > I point my finger at the Treasuror for failing to publish eir weekly
> > report since Apr 2
> >
> > Also I think the Assessor missed eirs? I would like my assets back etc.
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>
Re: BUS: Finger Pointing
Shennanigans. Due to the Treasuror not being a defined office (a bugfix for that is in last week's proposal distribution). It would have been nice for Gaelan to report informally but oh well. The Assessor doesn't have a report does e, just vote reporting right? What info are you thinking about? On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > I point my finger at the Treasuror for failing to publish eir weekly > report since Apr 2 > > Also I think the Assessor missed eirs? I would like my assets back etc. > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: BUS: Finger Pointing
I also point my finger at myself for failing to pend a Silly Proposal last week. On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Ned Strange wrote: > I point my finger at the Treasuror for failing to publish eir weekly > report since Apr 2 > > Also I think the Assessor missed eirs? I would like my assets back etc. > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
BUS: Finger Pointing
I point my finger at the Treasuror for failing to publish eir weekly report since Apr 2 Also I think the Assessor missed eirs? I would like my assets back etc. -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: BUS: Finger pointing
The facts are correct. Cold Hand of Justice Imposed: 2 Blots is the base penalty. I think a first offense of a missed report should start with the lowest penalty (lowest common infraction as a baseline). So I levy a fine of 1 blot on VJ Rada. This is forgivable, so does not take away salary for this month (no words specified for the apology). I'm not sure for future if the 2nd or 3rd missed report (14 or 21 days of "no work") would be the threshold for unforgivable for the purposes of losing a month's salary. On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > I point my finger at V.J. Rada for failing to publish the Notary's weekly > report. In general I agreee with G.'s two week rule, but in this case the > person responsible failed to publish the report after being elected to the > office. > > -Aris >
BUS: Finger pointing
I point my finger at V.J. Rada for failing to publish the Notary's weekly report. In general I agreee with G.'s two week rule, but in this case the person responsible failed to publish the report after being elected to the office. -Aris
Re: BUS: Finger pointing
On Oct 8, 2017, at 11:16 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I Point a Finger at Aris for failing to distribute proposals last week. Upheld. However, as the obvious remedy has been applied, and the omission appears to have been accidental in nature, I issue Aris a Green Card for violating rule 2143 with respect to the Promotor’s weekly duties. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
BUS: Finger pointing
I Point a Finger at Aris for failing to distribute proposals last week. -Alexis
