On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 17:52, Aaron Goldfein <aarongoldf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Sean Hunt wrote: >> > Ed Murphy wrote: >> >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2545 >> >> >> >> ========================= Criminal Case 2545 >> >> ========================= >> >> >> >> Yally violated Rule 2143, committing the Class-6 Crim of Making >> >> My Eyes Bleed, by means of publishing eir most recent IADoP's >> >> report in HTML. >> >> >> >> >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> >> >> Caller: ais523 >> >> Barred: Yally >> >> >> >> Judge: coppro >> >> Judgement: >> >> >> >> >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> >> >> History: >> >> >> >> Called by ais523: 28 May 2009 03:11:41 GMT >> >> Defendant Yally informed: 28 May 2009 03:11:41 GMT >> >> Assigned to coppro: (as of this message) >> >> >> >> >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> >> >> Caller's Arguments: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 21:09 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: >> >>> I publish an NoV alleging that Yally violated Rule 2143, committing >> >>> the >> >>> Class-6 Crim of Making My Eyes Bleed, by means of publishing eir most >> >>> recent IADoP's report in HTML. >> >>> >> >>> I contest this NoV. >> >> I CFJ on this; the issue of whether MIME messages containing both >> >> plaintext and HTML are legal is a rather important one, and I think it >> >> should go through the courts. >> >> >> >> >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> >> >> Gratuitous Arguments by Yally: >> >> >> >> Regardless of my guilt or innocence on the matter, I believe that if I >> >> am >> >> found guilty, it would be fundamentally unjust for any sentencing other >> >> than >> >> DISMISS as it is standard for gmail to use MIME and I cannot undo MIME >> >> and >> >> simultaneously submit reports in fixed width font. >> >> >> >> >> >> ======================================================================== >> > >> > First, I will establish whether or not Yally is guilty. >> > >> > For a verdict of GUILTY, all of the conditions outlined in R1504 must be >> > met. >> > >> > (a) the Accused breached the specified rule via the specified act. >> > >> > In Yally's case, e published eir report, entitled [IADoP] Office Report, >> > in both HTML and plain text through the use of a MIME multipart message. >> > Rule 2143 states that >> > Reports SHALL be published in plain text. Tabular data must >> > line up properly when viewed in a monospaced font. Publishing >> > reports that deviate from these regulations is the Class 6 Crime >> > of Making My Eyes Bleed. >> > In particular, it is not the failure to publish a plaintext report that >> > is the crime; it is the publication of a non-plaintext report. The >> > archives make it clear that Yally's message in fact included two >> > separate reports: one in plaintext that conforms except in a trivial >> > manner (in the Weekly reports section, the Promotor and Conductor lines >> > are indented by one space), and one in HTML consisting of what is >> > largely believed to be the same content, though I have not verified it. >> > The second one is not readable plain text, which vilolates the >> > regulations put forth in R2143 and thus constitues the Crime of Making >> > My Eyes Bleed. >> > >> > As such, I find this condition satisfied. >> > >> > (b) the breach occurred withing 90 days prior to the case being >> > initiated. >> > >> > I find this condition satisfied, no arguments necessary. >> > >> > (c) judgement has not already been reached in another criminal case, >> > or punishment already applied through another uncontested notice >> > of violation, with the same Accused, the same rule, and >> > substantially the same alleged act. >> > >> > I find this condition satisfied, no arguments necessary. >> > >> > (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the alleged >> > act did not violate the specified rule. >> > >> > This could present a valid defense. Yally may not have been aware that >> > his email client was publishing in HTML as well as plain text as the >> > reports are largely indistinguishable. However, given that complaints >> > had repeatedly been raised and instructions given to Yally regarding the >> > delivery of emails in text form from eir specific mail client, and the >> > ease by which the verification of content sent to the lists can be >> > performed (see my recent test message to a-d), I find that it would have >> > been reasonable for Yally to be aware that eir emails were being sent in >> > multipart form. >> > >> > Furthermore, the fact that Yally may not have known that a multipart >> > email violated the rules is immaterial. Ignorance of the law is not a >> > defense except when it is genuinely unreasonable to expect the person to >> > know the law - given that this rule is new, it is expected that every >> > player would have read the Assessor's results posting, which includes >> > the text of new rules. >> > >> > As such, I find this condition satisfied. >> > >> > (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the breach >> > without committing a different breach of equal or greater >> > severity. >> > >> > The only possible more severe breach would be the Crime of Endorsing >> > Forgery. There was no reason that ratification without objection needed >> > to be related in the publication of any report - doubly so given that >> > the most substantial part of the IADoP's report is self-ratifying. >> > >> > As such, I find this condition satisfied. >> > >> > Accordingly with my findings, I assign a judgment of GUILTY. >> > >> > Now, I shall assign a sentence. In considering the appropriate sentence, >> > there are two vital factors to consider. >> > >> > The first is that Yally did not breach the spirit of the law but only >> > the text. E did simultaneously publish a text-only report as specified >> > by the rule, and the illegal HTML report did conform to the requirements >> > specified by the rules. >> > >> > The second is that it would have been trivial for Yally to submit a >> > report in plain text. As has been demonstrated by the numerous other >> > reports, all published only in plain text (several of whom use GMail, >> > though I do not know which officers, if any, normally submit messages >> > through the GMail web interface); by the instructions given by root as >> > to causing the GMail web interface to submit messages only in plain >> > text; and by the test message to a-d I sent from the GMail web interface >> > for the purpose of determining whether or not it was possible to send a >> > message via that interface in plain text - the archives verify that it >> > is - it is clear that it would not have been much extra effort for Yally >> > to compose eir reports in plain text. >> > >> > As such, I feel that a compromise is warranted. While I feel that >> > APOLOGY is too light a punishment for an easy-to-avoid act for which the >> > ninny has repeatedly been reprimanded pending the new, legislation, 6 >> > Rests is far too harsh given the ninny's efforts toward conformance. >> > >> > As such, I set the fine for this case at 3 Rests (the minimum possible), >> > having already received sufficient support, I judge SILENCE, and I spend >> > C# to destroy one of Yally's Rests as 3 is still disproportionate. >> > >> > Court is adjourned. >> > >> > -coppro >> >> Err... I spend C# C# to destroy one of Yally's Rests. > > I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment. While I mostly accept > Judge coppro's arguments, I do not agree entirely. > >> >> (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the alleged >> act did not violate the specified rule. >> >> (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the breach >> without committing a different breach of equal or greater >> severity. > > > At the time I submitted that report, I was fully aware of this rule but I > also legitamately thought that I was not breaching it. From my point of > view, I don't have very many options. There is a plaintext option in Gmail, > but selecting this removes any capabilities to change fonts or fontspacing, > meaning I am stuck with a variable width font. Even now I'm unsure how to > satisfy both the plaintext and monospaced requirements and, without some > help, I'll probably break this rule again.
Compose your reports in notepad, and then paste them into gmail's text only format. That's what I do and it's always worked for me. BobTHJ
