Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Aaron Goldfein <aarongoldf...@gmail.com
> <mailto:aarongoldf...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> <aarongoldf...@gmail.com <mailto:aarongoldf...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com
> <mailto: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.
>
>
> I appeal this judgment.
>
>
> This appeal seems to have been ignored by the CotC.
>
NoV em for it, then.
