2009/5/19 Alex Smith <[email protected]>: > On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 13:37 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Elliott Hird >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 2009/5/19 Geoffrey Spear <[email protected]>: >> >> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Sun 17 May 21:30:09 2499 comex recused >> >>> Sun 17 May 21:31:40 2507-08 comex recused >> >> >> >> I publish an NoV alleging that comex violated the Power 2 Rule 2158 by >> >> failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2499 as soon as possible after e >> >> was assigned as its judge. >> > >> > I contest this, as childish retaliation is not good grounds for a NoV. >> >> I initiate a criminal case regarding this NoV. comex is undoubtedly >> GUILTY. e did breach the specified rule with the specified act, the >> breach occurred within the last 90 days, e has not been previously >> punished for this offense, e could not have reasonably believed that e >> was not breaching the rule through eir inaction, and e could have >> reasonably avoided the breach by either assigning a judgment or >> recusing emself from the case. > > Really, we need to overhaul the NoV rules so that NoVs for minor things > like this are actually called on a regular basis. IMO, it would be a > good idea to halve the antivalue of Rests, and set a tight statue of > limitations (maybe 1 week). Then NoV all the breaches that we can find > from that moment onwards. > > NoVing shouldn't be some sort of heavyweight drastic action, that's what > the courts are for. It should be a way to give people wrist-slaps for > late reports, etc. > Spending one note to destroy one rest does sound logical and good...
-- -Tiger
