On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Ed Murphy<emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2545a > > ============================ Appeal 2545a ============================ > > Panelist: Tiger > Decision: > > Panelist: Taral > Decision: > > Panelist: allispaul > Decision: > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Appeal initiated: 30 May 2009 02:44:32 GMT > Assigned to Tiger (panelist): (as of this message) > Assigned to Taral (panelist): (as of this message) > Assigned to allispaul (panelist): (as of this message) > > ======================================================================== > > Appellant Yally's Arguments: > > 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. > > ======================================================================== > > 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: GUILTY > > Appeal: 2545a > Decision: (pending) > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Called by ais523: 28 May 2009 03:11:41 GMT > Defendant Yally informed: 28 May 2009 03:11:41 GMT > Assigned to coppro: 29 May 2009 21:15:39 GMT > Judged GUILTY by coppro: 29 May 2009 23:36:58 GMT > Appealed by Yally: 29 May 2009 23:52:05 GMT > Appeal 2545a: 30 May 2009 02:44:32 GMT > > ======================================================================== > > Gratuitous Arguments by ais523: > > R101 allows players to participate in the fora. Email format > is not plain text either, because it has headers. > > ======================================================================== > > Gratuitous Arguments by ehird: > > Those are officially RFC-defined email metadata, not part of the > actual message as we speak of it. > > ======================================================================== > > Gratuitous Arguments by G.: > > And boy, even if that's not a defense, here's one that shouldn't be > class 6. I mean, it shouldn't be better to publish no report at all > instead of using HTML. -G. > > ======================================================================== > > Gratuitous Arguments by comex: > > does the message contain a plain-text version without > artifacts? (I can't check...) If so, it's absurd to punish Yally for > including a monospaced HTML version. In Gmail and on iPhone, a > plaintext version would be displayed in variable width font (and it > can't be toggled on the later). Thus the HTML copy enhances > readability-- indeed, all officers should provide it. > > ======================================================================== > > 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. > > ======================================================================== > > Judge coppro's Arguments: > > 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. > > ======================================================================== > > Gratuitous Arguments by woggle: > > I support this appeal. > > But, Yally should read R1504: >> An appeal concerning any assignment of judgment in a criminal >> case within the past week CAN be initiated by the accused by >> announcement. > Arguments for the appeal: > I do not agree with Yally's arguments; however, I believe the appeals > panel should consider Pavitra's objection: >> Sean Hunt wrote: >> >>> > (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. >>> >> I don't see that that interpretation necessarily follows from that text, >> and IIRC this very point of interpretation was one of the key >> controversies of the case. Can you explain in more detail how you >> arrived at your reasoning? >> > Yally's report was plainly published in plain text as coppro even > states. Is this really arguing that Yally published two Registrar's > reports by publishing a multipart/alternative message, and that one of > these reports violated the rule by not being in plain text? If so, this > does not seem a reasonable interpretation, as the MIME pretty clearly > marks it as exactly one message, and we have traditionally been somewhat > allowing with message formats (e.g. multipart documents spanning > multiple emails). If they are the same report, published simulatenously > in HTML and plain text, then this report was plainly published in a > plain text so Yally is NOT GUILTY because the specified act did not > violate the rule in this case, because e did publish this report in > plain text as required by the rule. > > Perhaps Yally violated the rule by publishing eir report as a multipart > MIME message instead of as plain text, but that is not what coppro > appears to argue and would necessitate a verdict of NOT GUILTY because > Yally did not perform the specified act ("publishing eir most recent > IaDOP's report in HTML"). > > ======================================================================== > > Gratuitous Arguments by coppro: > > "Publishing reports that deviate from these regulations is the Class 6 > Crime of Making My Eyes Bleed." It's very specific that the act of > publishing a deviating report is illegal (the prior text about "Reports > SHALL be published in plain text." is misleading; the act of committing > a crime is in itself a separate violation - see various other rules that > provide Crimes without otherwise specifying that the Crime is a > violation of the rule. > > ======================================================================== >
Here's how not to break the rule: (1) Compose your report in Notepad or in another fixed-width font. (2) On the Gmail formatting bar, click "<< Plain Text" and paste in your report. Though it may not look right in your e-mail window, it will look normal in the archives and break no rule. So (e) is satisfied, and I agree with coppro's arguments on (d). Moreover, he not only opted for the minimum punishment, but spent one of his notes to reduce it below the minimum. I opine AFFIRM.
