Goethe wrote: > NoV: Against the PNP, for purposefully publishing this false and > misleading fact, thereby violating R2215. If this created an NoV (isn't it missing required information?), I contest this NoV, and initiate a criminal case on it.
Arguments: I suggest that the judge of that case apply the standard punishment, but (per rule 2145) apply it to comex, rather than to the partnership as a whole (a criminal case is needed to do that, an NoV isn't sufficient). In addition, and to shake matters up further, I think the PNP may actually be NOT GUILTY on this one. R2215 bans making a statement that is "intended to mislead others as to its truth"; the PNP, being a legal construct and not a natural person at all, cannot have intentions in the common-language sense (and this is clearly a different sense of intent to that used in R1728). On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 08:56 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > Proposal pool: empty I NoV against comex for violating the power-2 rule 1742 by violating the PNP by causing it to fail to meet all its obligations. I contest that NoV and initiate a criminal case on it, submitting the above as arguments. -- ais523
