Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:32 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Can someone point me to the CFJ that says "authorized to" conditions are > triggered by a CAN, but not a SHALL? (specifically that look at the term > "authorize", I'm just curious how much that highly-used but undefined in > the rules word has been adjudicated). This one is pretty close, in that it asks whether "X SHALL do Y" resulted in the rules "authorizing" Y. It's not quite on point, though: as the judge of that case I simply assumed that "authorized" meant "CAN", and focused instead on the question of whether that particular SHALL implied a CAN. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3736
DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch
On 6/26/2020 8:59 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > > G., you will need to initiate the decisions, but you can't yet, so hold > on until the Fixes pass. > Can someone point me to the CFJ that says "authorized to" conditions are triggered by a CAN, but not a SHALL? (specifically that look at the term "authorize", I'm just curious how much that highly-used but undefined in the rules word has been adjudicated).
Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch
On 6/26/20 12:37 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > 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. > Then, we ought to amend the rule. According the rules, the base value is 4 blots. The fine should be reduced for being reasonably inconsequential but then increased for being an abuse of power and profitable, resulting in what I believe to be a fine of 4 blots when interpreted kindly. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch
On 6/26/2020 8:59 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > G., you will need to initiate the decisions, but you can't yet, so hold > on until the Fixes pass. > Yah knowing this was coming up is one reason I grabbed the green ribbon when I did :)
DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch
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
