On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 18:13, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > G. wrote: > >> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >>> However, the punishment isn't being "replaced." I would be >>> simultaneously punished with two TIME OUTs. >> >> Since "two simultaneous time-outs" is still an identical net >> punishment, this argument has no bearing. Without extending this >> to be a precedent on R101 in cases where the net punishment would >> actually be additive, I opine AFFIRM. > > Gratuitous: > > Timing of relative events (all UTC): > > 4 Apr 15:58:55 2982 TIME OUT 7 begins, Yally becomes inactive > 4 Apr 16:54:36 2982 appealed, Yally becomes active > 4 Apr 22:35:56 2982 affirmed, Yally becomes inactive > 4 Apr 23:23:20 Yally becomes active > 6 Apr 15:40:47 2985 TIME OUT 14 begins, Yally becomes inactive > 6 Apr 19:00:28 Yally becomes active > 11 Apr 22:35:56 2982 time limit ends > 20 Apr 05:01:16 Proposal 7002 changes TIME OUTs from parallel to > serial; Proposal 7012 changes reactivation from > SHALL NOT to CANNOT > 20 Apr 15:40:47 2985 time limit ends > 21 Apr 05:42:08 3004 TIME OUT 14 begins, Yally becomes inactive > and eir stasis timer becomes 14 days and it > starts decreasing > 21 Apr 05:50:07 3004 appealed, Yally becomes active and eir > stasis timer becomes zero > > The only simultaneous TIME OUTs are from 2982 and 2985, which > doesn't violate R101 because they were for different violations.
When 3004a was affirmed, I was sentenced to TIME OUT, and if 3004b is affirmed, I will be sentenced to TIME OUT again, which I contend will not count.
