How ironic!
On 2009-06-07, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/7/09, Paul VanKoughnett <allisp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Paul VanKoughnett<allisp...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> TTttPF >> > > > I transfer a prop from the person I'm quoting to G. for, while judging > a case about message formatting, posting such a long message-- with > the actual content at the bottom-- that it took no little effort on my > part to read it on this phone. When I get back to a PC I'll propose > adding this to Making My Eyes Bleed. Trim your damn quotes. >
