On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:04 PM, omd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Arguments:
>
> As stated in Rule 1023, Agoran weeks begin on Mondays, not Tuesdays.
> The caller did indeed publish a message at the stated time (although
> that's not the one e labeled as a CoE - not that it matters), but it
> was well after the Promotor's deadline for distributing the proposal.
> Accordingly, while scshunt indeed committed the mentioned violations,
> they should be treated as a regular error, not an "aggravated" one
> made in spite of warnings. The fact that e distributed the rest of
> the proposals less than 4 hours before the deadline could count
> against em, since there was no reasonable chance for a warning,
> although tightly meeting deadlines is not usually considered a
> problem*; in any case, eir failure to do so in the last 3 days or do
> (despite incessant reminders) is not particularly significant.
>
> That said, as the precedent of the recent Referee case reminds us, the
> Referee's behavior is almost entirely discretionary, so it doesn't
> matter what e deserves; this case should be DISMISSed as irrelevant.
>
> * That is, a legal problem. I think delaying the proposal system this
> way can and should be addressed through elections (no offense to
> scshunt personally, I'm sure e's busy with Real Life), especially as e
> holds both Promotor and Assessor, but I suppose the way to address
> that would have been to nominate myself in one of the elections that
> just ended. H. Henri, why not intend to deputise? :P
>
> - operationally meaningful designation
Rebuttal:
omd says:
"As stated in Rule 1023, Agoran weeks begin on Mondays, not
Tuesdays."
That is entirely ambiguous. Midnight Monday is not defined in the
ruleset to be 00:00 or 24:00.
omd says:
"tightly meeting deadlines is not usually considered a problem"
Rule 1607 states that "the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir weekly
duties, distribute all pending proposals. Therefore, it is not
meeting the weekly deadline is considered a problem.
omd says:
"That said, as the precedent of the recent Referee case reminds us,
the Referee's behavior is almost entirely discretionary, so it
doesn't matter what e deserves; this case should be DISMISSed as
irrelevant."
Regardless of the Referee's behavior, what scshunt deserves as
punishment does not have to be what the Referee assigns to scshunt.
-Henri
