DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3320 assigned to omd
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM, woggle wrote: > I hereby appeal this judgment. > > Arguments: > The message was eventually delivered. Per CFJ 1646 and CFJ 2058, it was sent > when it left my technical domain of control, which was before the deadline. > Even if this precedent does not apply, on its basis, I could have reasonably > believed that my inaction did not violate Rule 2143. Arguments: Sorry, I didn't remember that CFJ. The precedent (specifically, the part about the time of an action being counted differently for one specific purpose) should not apply, in my opinion, on account of its having no rule basis or argument for why it should be true whatsoever, but it is certainly an argument for DISCHARGE.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3320 assigned to omd
Well, I thought the sentence was pretty minor (more so than APOLOGY), but that's subjective. Feel free to appeal. Sent from my iPhone On May 12, 2013, at 9:26 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:13 PM, omd wrote: >> I assume the defendant received the bounce message immediately after >> attempting to post the ruleset, so e could have reasonably avoided >> breaking the rule by various methods, such as splitting the ruleset >> into parts or possibly posting a link to it along with its hash. >> However, all of these workarounds are fairly annoying, so a light >> punishment is appropriate. GUILTY/COMMUNITY SERVICE, destroy 1 VC (as >> a R2354 cost for completing the task) within 1 month. > > The rule breach seems extremely minor in my opinion, since the rules > are kept up to date at > https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~charles/agora/current_flr.txt anyway, > and Rulekeepor woggle did in fact attempt to publish eir report. While > publishing a message in multiple parts does indeed count as publishing > the message (by CFJs 1451 and 1452), I don't think this method of > publishing large messages is obvious. > > ―Machiavelli
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3320 assigned to omd
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:13 PM, omd wrote: > I assume the defendant received the bounce message immediately after > attempting to post the ruleset, so e could have reasonably avoided > breaking the rule by various methods, such as splitting the ruleset > into parts or possibly posting a link to it along with its hash. > However, all of these workarounds are fairly annoying, so a light > punishment is appropriate. GUILTY/COMMUNITY SERVICE, destroy 1 VC (as > a R2354 cost for completing the task) within 1 month. The rule breach seems extremely minor in my opinion, since the rules are kept up to date at https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~charles/agora/current_flr.txt anyway, and Rulekeepor woggle did in fact attempt to publish eir report. While publishing a message in multiple parts does indeed count as publishing the message (by CFJs 1451 and 1452), I don't think this method of publishing large messages is obvious. —Machiavelli
