On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 23:26 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > Wooble wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:28 PM, comex <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ > >>> 2316 as soon as possible after e become assigned to it as Judge. > >>> > >>> comex violated R2158 (power 2) by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ > >>> 2317 as soon as possible after e become assigned to it as Judge. > >> I contest these. The accusations are probably accurate, but four > >> rests is an inappropriate penalty for failing to judge CFJs. > > > > I initiate criminal CFJs regarding both of these NoVs. I recommend > > double rests; comex is clearly GUILTY. > > Gratuituous: comex didn't dispute eir guilt, only the extent to which e > should be punished. This early in the NoV era, I think this counts as > reasonable dispute rather than obstruction.
Note that the intent of the proposal was that contesting NoVs due to a belief that their punishment is unjust is valid, and a reasonable use of contestment. There is also precedent, in OscarMeyr punishing ehird with APOLOGY rather than SILENCE/6 for eir attempt to change eir name to the null string. -- ais523
