Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 at 21:12, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 3:36 PM omd wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote: > > > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). > > > > Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other > > rules that are much more stale. > > It’s never been used, and IMO it’s more annoying than anything else. Well, G. said e proposed the rule to illustrate a security hole in R106, which eir "power-limit precedence" proposal, soon to be adopted, is meant to fix. Should we could wait for someone to try to test that before repealing the rule? Personally I plan to keep voting "AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has been published..." on most proposals I'd otherwise vote FOR until the threat of unexpected last-minute vetos goes away. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 3:36 PM omd wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote: > > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). > > Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other > rules that are much more stale. It’s never been used, and IMO it’s more annoying than anything else. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
Are you looking at Rule 2350 ("Proposals"), which is the only place I
see that wording ("remove (syn. retract, withdraw)")? I was looking at
Rule 105 ("Rule Changes"), which does not define "withdraw".
Jason Cobb
On 7/7/19 5:05 PM, James Cook wrote:
The rule says "remove (syn. retract, withdraw)".
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 15:54, Jason Cobb wrote:
This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't believe "withdraw" is defined
for rules, only "repeal".
Jason Cobb
On 7/6/19 10:52 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 14:38, James Cook wrote:
I submit a proposal as follows.
Title: Police Power
Actually, to get R. Lee potentially on board, I'll make the proposal
shorten the ruleset.
I withdraw the proposal I most recently submitted (title "Police Power").
I submit a proposal as follows.
Title: Administrative Reform and Police Power Omnibus
Co-authors: Jason Cobb
Adoption index: 1.7
Text:
Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto).
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.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
The rule says "remove (syn. retract, withdraw)". On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 15:54, Jason Cobb wrote: > > This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't believe "withdraw" is defined > for rules, only "repeal". > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/6/19 10:52 AM, James Cook wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 14:38, James Cook wrote: > >> I submit a proposal as follows. > >> > >> Title: Police Power > > Actually, to get R. Lee potentially on board, I'll make the proposal > > shorten the ruleset. > > > > I withdraw the proposal I most recently submitted (title "Police Power"). > > > > I submit a proposal as follows. > > > > Title: Administrative Reform and Police Power Omnibus > > Co-authors: Jason Cobb > > Adoption index: 1.7 > > Text: > > > > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). > > > > 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.] -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote: > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other rules that are much more stale.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't believe "withdraw" is defined for rules, only "repeal". Jason Cobb On 7/6/19 10:52 AM, James Cook wrote: On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 14:38, James Cook wrote: I submit a proposal as follows. Title: Police Power Actually, to get R. Lee potentially on board, I'll make the proposal shorten the ruleset. I withdraw the proposal I most recently submitted (title "Police Power"). I submit a proposal as follows. Title: Administrative Reform and Police Power Omnibus Co-authors: Jason Cobb Adoption index: 1.7 Text: Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). 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.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
Does anyone else agree that a "by announcement" is needed here? If so, someone might want to get a proposal submitted by the next distribution. Jason Cobb On 7/3/19 12:38 AM, omd wrote: Does Proposal 8181 actually fix it? Rule 2557 still needs a "by announcement". In any case, it seems to be true that Proposal 8181 hasn't even been adopted. I judge both CFJ 3743 and CFJ 3753 FALSE, with the above-quoted messages as evidence.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > So would I face prejudice if I were to open the exact same CFJs again > later once we actually get CHoJ fixed? Fine by me.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
No On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > So would I face prejudice if I were to open the exact same CFJs again > later once we actually get CHoJ fixed? > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/3/19 12:38 AM, omd wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:49 PM Jason Cobb > wrote: > >> Dang it; you are absolutely right, and I didn't consider that. > >> > >> Note to judge omd: this applies just as well to CFJ 3743. > >> Jason Cobb > >> > >> On 7/2/19 10:45 PM, James Cook wrote: > >>> Gratuitous argument: > >>> > >>> As far as I know, finger-pointing still isn't fixed. CFJ 3736 > >>> determined that the Referee CANNOT levy a fine. > >>> > >>> Proposal 8181 is supposed to fix it, but D. Margaux's attempt to > >>> resolve it on June 22 failed because it didn't list Telnaior's votes, > >>> as G. noted in a CoE a few hours later. > > Does Proposal 8181 actually fix it? Rule 2557 still needs a "by > announcement". > > > > In any case, it seems to be true that Proposal 8181 hasn't even been > adopted. > > > > I judge both CFJ 3743 and CFJ 3753 FALSE, with the above-quoted > > messages as evidence. > -- >From R. Lee
