H. CotC Murphy, please submit my interspersed comments here as arguments on 2926a.
On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 22:46 -0500, omd wrote: > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This, unfortunately for em, does not work, as there is no > > gamestate by which Rule 1551 would actually make that change. Agoran > > precedence has long held that no entity can set up a delayed effect of this > > form, so there is no reason that ratification would suddenly be able to do > > so. > > There is no delayed effect here. The document is a sort of prophecy, > which states that something will happen in its future. Looking at it > from the present, we can say the prophecy is true if Rule 1551 does > actually make the specified change at the time of ratification, false > if ratification has occurred but the change has not, and still > undetermined otherwise. If the document does ever get ratified, Rule > 1551 will change the gamestate so that it is true, but in the mean > time, it is neither true nor false. This argument is mostly correct, and I think coppro erred in this. It doesn't mean you're innocent, though. You're making statements about ratification which are only correct under the old, broken version of the ratification rule; and with multiple fix proposals pending, including one you authored, making a general statement about the future, one which relies on a particular current wording of the rule to still hold if a particular statement is ever ratified in the future, is just logically false. > > I do not believe the reasonability defense applies here as there is no > > Agoran precedence > > precedent, but I think the above argument is reasonable even if the > court ends up disagreeing with it (although it's moot because the > document won't be ratified). > > > Accordingly, I judge this case GUILTY. > > Note also that, whether or not it was actually illegal, I have already > been punished for this particular action: I NoVed myself for violating > Rule 2215 (Truthiness), and closed the NoV. Making incorrect statements is one issue. Attempting to ratify them is another. I don't think they're the same crime, and indeed, you could be punished for both. > I appeal this jugement. -- ais523
