On 6/26/20 11:10 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I plead guilty, but I really do think that 4 blots is too high a penalty > for what I did. I wrote a patch for a bug that was possibly exploitable > in the future, but I certified it under what I think was a plausible > reading of the rule (even if ultimately found to be wrong) for the > purpose of testing a new rule (and, sure, saving the pendant). [Since > this is a public message, I'm not lying, and it would be illegal for me > to do so.] > > I will destroy one of my pendants if asked to, so that my asset > standings will be the same as what they "should" be. [Not a pledge, but > only because I don't want the notary to have to track it.]
FWIW as the judge of this CFJ I agree. I would personally recommend 2 or 3 blots. 4 should be reserved for intentionally flaunting the rule, not a bad reading. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
