DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT

2008-07-13 Thread ihope 
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 In the message in question, Defendant stated:  I join and not I am
 registered.  As e argued, a failed action is not a false statement.  I
 therefore rule INNOCENT.

 This appears to be a frequent confusion. INNOCENT means e did not
 perform the action. Actions that do not violate the rule are
 UNIMPUGNED.

 I intend with two support to appeal this judgement.

The alleged action was lying, not saying I join, so it's INNOCENT
that's appropriate here.

--Ivan Hope CXXVII

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT

2008-07-13 Thread Taral 
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:59 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The alleged action was lying, not saying I join, so it's INNOCENT
 that's appropriate here.

Ah, quite right. Something that my proposal is intended to fix. Nevermind.

-- 
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
 -- Unknown

DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT

2008-07-13 Thread Elliott Hird 
2008/7/13 Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Poppycock.  E said that e joined, but knew that e was not in fact joining.
 I support the call for appeal of this judgement, and recommend a final
 judgement of GUILTY.

 -zefram


I'm not sure I _want_ to be registered if something that goes wrong is illegal.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT

2008-07-13 Thread Elliott Hird 
2008/7/13 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Oh please.  Using a different email address and pretending you have no
 idea why anyone would suspect you were you isn't something that goes
 wrong.

That is not what the CFJ is on.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT

2008-07-13 Thread Zefram 
Elliott Hird wrote:
I'm not sure I _want_ to be registered if something that goes wrong is illegal.

R2149 does not forbid mistakes.  It forbids lies.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruling in CFJ 2053: INNOCENT

2008-07-13 Thread Zefram 
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If you really want justice, you'd admit the rules are unclear on avatars,
and make a rule to wit masquerading as more than one individual is against
the Rules.

It has occurred to me that the power of R2149 makes the available penalty
somewhat inadequate for this particular type of lie.  I'd be in favour
of a power=3 rule explicitly forbidding lying about one's identity.

-zefram