On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, omd wrote:
> > Assertion A: While Machiavelli tries to make it clear that e is publishing
> > something on behalf of someone else, the fact that this is ISID means
> > Machiavelli is misleading us... the registration has not actually been
> > published by djanatyn.
>
> Arguments: There is a long history of precedent favoring act-on-behalf
> in general, e.g. CFJ 1719.
Which, given regular changes to the ruleset, should be re-evaluated with
the current Rules. In particular, the "reasonable limits" citation of
CFJ 1719 should be examined, and the meaning and applicability of the first
sentence of R2170 (added in 2008, so possibly in reaction to the general
goings-on around the time after the cited CFJ).
> > I suggest that Machiavelli has not yet provided sufficient evidence on
> > djanatyn's existence to prove emself innocent of the charge beyond a
> > reasonable doubt.
>
> E's innocent unless guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not the other way
> around.
Sorry, I meant "if evidence of the claim cannot be produced further,
it should be beyond a reasonable doubt that this is because no evidence
exists (e.g. guilty)." Yes this is arguable; in any case it is moot as
I agree that the IRC snippet you provided puts us outside the reasonable
doubt category and into preponderance of the evidence.
-G.
