DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 17:56 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, comex wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Notice of Violation: Actor: ehird. Action: Failure to publish a an apology explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement, ASAP after being sentenced to GUILTY/APOLOGY in CFJ 2347. Rule violated: 1504 I contest this. NoVing someone immediately upon joining is very rude. E ceased to play for a month, let em be. I initiate a criminal case on the above notice. Arguments: The defendant directly insulted the judge who sentenced em and then deregistered, perhaps to avoid punishment. The fact that e imposed exile on emself was eir own choice, not the court's, and shouldn't be a mitigating factor (see: the meaningfulness of deciding on one's own punishment). If we don't believe an APOLOGY is meaningful, we should get rid of the language that supports it, not allow it to be turned into a mockery of the civil society it attempts to represent. -G. I think the above notice might be invalid; isn't Failure to Apologise a defined Crime? -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
2009/2/27 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu: Notice of Violation: Actor: ehird. Action: Failure to publish a an apology explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement, ASAP after being sentenced to GUILTY/APOLOGY in CFJ 2347. Rule violated: 1504 -Goethe Note: this NoV is invalid per rule 2239. Accordingly, the corresponding CFJ does not exist.
DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
ais523 wrote: I register with the name ehird. H. Insulator Murphy / H. Herald Sgeo, how many Rests does ehird have at the moment? 5. (And ehird: you should have waited a couple of days before reregistering, you'd only have had half as many...) E would have had 2. This meets deregistration timeout, but I'm not certain offhand whether or not it meets exile timeout. Rule 2229 blocks you from re-registering at = 6 rests, so e's okay on that front.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
2009/2/27 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com: ais523 wrote: I register with the name ehird. H. Insulator Murphy / H. Herald Sgeo, how many Rests does ehird have at the moment? 5. CoE: 4, according to last Insulator report.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote: I think the above notice might be invalid; isn't Failure to Apologise a defined Crime? Indeed, I missed that. -g.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
ehird wrote: 2009/2/27 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com: ais523 wrote: I register with the name ehird. H. Insulator Murphy / H. Herald Sgeo, how many Rests does ehird have at the moment? 5. CoE: 4, according to last Insulator report. Denied: Insulator's Fnord Report Date of this report: Mon 23 Feb 09 Date of last report: Tue 17 Feb 09 (All times are UTC) Rests (* = Fugitive) - 3 comex 5* ehird 4 Murphy 1* Quazie 1* root 2 Sgeo 2 Taral 2 w1n5t0n
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
2009/2/27 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com: Denied: My mind, 'tis slipping.
DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
2009/2/27 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu: As pointed out, the previous NoV was not in fact an NoV. Notice of Violation: Actor: ehird. Action: Failure to publish a an apology explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement, ASAP after being sentenced to GUILTY/APOLOGY in CFJ 2347. Rule violated: 1504 Crime: Class-3 Crime of Failure to Apologize (R1504). Is this not also invalid per R2239?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: 2009/2/27 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu: As pointed out, the previous NoV was not in fact an NoV. Notice of Violation: Actor: ehird. Action: Failure to publish a an apology explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement, ASAP after being sentenced to GUILTY/APOLOGY in CFJ 2347. Rule violated: 1504 Crime: Class-3 Crime of Failure to Apologize (R1504). Is this not also invalid per R2239? Probably. Is failure to publish something instantaneous upon the time limit expiring or continuous? I'll let you call that CFJ. This is why I meant to vote against this one, I blame myself. EVERYONE: any crimes you committed prior to 21 Feb 2009 are un-NOV-able in a way that spawns CFJs (I meant to commit a rather vile crime myself just to prove the complete and utter idiocy of R2239). The worst part is that it invalidates NoVs instead of just making DISCHARGE the default sentence for grandfathered crimes - therefore we now have to deal with the messiness of a separate CFJ process on invalidity rather than just proceeding to NOT GUILTY or DISCHARGE. Well, at least Murphy who proposed this is the one stuck with the work. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: 2009/2/27 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu: Crime: Class-3 Crime of Failure to Apologize (R1504). Is this not also invalid per R2239? Probably. Is failure to publish something instantaneous upon the time limit expiring or continuous? I'll let you call that CFJ. Actually, this whole thing is pretty interesting, worthy of some Inquiry, even getting down to the whole ceasing to play issue: a. You were sentenced to apology. b. You published an apology. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it wasn't an apology (either because it didn't show remorse, or because the text itself said it wasn't an apology). c. Before the ASAP time limit expired, you deregistered. d. Arguably, once you quit, you (arguably) weren't subject to the ASAP requirement, or you'd still be playing (or whatever we're considering for R101 -- while contracts may or may not be playing, being required to publish an apology is certainly playing). e. You re-joined. When you re-joined, were you instantly subject to the ASAP requirement, so you committed the crime when you registered, which is not grandfathered? Or was the time instant for that seven days after sentencing, while you were deregistered (which is now grandfathered)? But how could that work when you weren't subject to the law at that time? Any thoughts on inquiry CFJs to sort this out? Or am I being dumb and missing something obvious? (If this can somehow be construed into Guilty, I think Discharge works fine btw, I'm more interested in the whole process and timing of culpability versus deregistration and re-registration here). -Goethe.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
Goethe wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: 2009/2/27 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu: As pointed out, the previous NoV was not in fact an NoV. Notice of Violation: Actor:      ehird. Action:     Failure to publish a an apology explaining eir error, shame,          remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement, ASAP after          being sentenced to GUILTY/APOLOGY in CFJ 2347. Rule violated:  1504 Crime:      Class-3 Crime of Failure to Apologize (R1504). Is this not also invalid per R2239? Probably. Is failure to publish something instantaneous upon the time limit expiring or continuous? I'll let you call that CFJ. We've had at least one continued-failure equity case (ironically 2239, following 2038) but criminal standards may differ. I admit to not foreseeing this issue. This is why I meant to vote against this one, I blame myself. EVERYONE: any crimes you committed prior to 21 Feb 2009 are un-NOV-able in a way that spawns CFJs (I meant to commit a rather vile crime myself just to prove the complete and utter idiocy of R2239). The worst part is that it invalidates NoVs instead of just making DISCHARGE the default sentence for grandfathered crimes - therefore we now have to deal with the messiness of a separate CFJ process on invalidity rather than just proceeding to NOT GUILTY or DISCHARGE. Well, at least Murphy who proposed this is the one stuck with the work. -G. That was precisely the point of R2239; I was tired of having to do *more* processing wrt all the old violations being dredged up. Now the work for old violations will be performed by the would-be accuser, who in at least some cases will remember R2239 and not bother accusing. Crimes committed during the voting period could also have been NoVed and crim-cased during the voting period, though this would be more difficult toward the end; I should have made the cutoff no later than the start of the voting period. Of course, if you really want to ding something that happened earlier, you can amend R2239 to move the cutoff back a week or two.
DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
ehird wrote: I initiate a criminal CFJ against myself for violating rule 101 by failing to be a pink elephant. Arguments: I did it. I accept full responsibility for my breach of the rules. I am guilty. Arguments: According to Goethe, if you admit you breached the rules you're guilty, regardless of whether or not the rules say you're guilty. I interpret this as being a Notice of Violation, and a valid (albeit incorrect) one, thus the initiation of the criminal case succeeds.
DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
ehird wrote: I initiate a criminal CFJ against myself for violating rule 101 by failing to be a pink elephant. Arguments: I did it. I accept full responsibility for my breach of the rules. I am guilty. Arguments: According to Goethe, if you admit you breached the rules you're guilty, regardless of whether or not the rules say you're guilty. No, wait, it's not a valid NoV because you specified neither a named and Classed crime nor the Power of the rule allegedly violated.
DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
Goethe wrote: Notice of Violation: Actor: ehird. Action: Failure to publish a an apology explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement, ASAP after being sentenced to GUILTY/APOLOGY in CFJ 2347. Rule violated: 1504 Invalid, power not specified.
DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: Arguments: According to Goethe, if you admit you breached the rules you're guilty, regardless of whether or not the rules say you're guilty. I didn't say that. We're talking about cases where (a) we actually interpret an action as a breach; in which case (b) we're asking whether a confession of having known about the breach is accepted. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: Arguments: According to Goethe, if you admit you breached the rules you're guilty, regardless of whether or not the rules say you're guilty. I didn't say that. We're talking about cases where (a) we actually interpret an action as a breach; in which case (b) we're asking whether a confession of having known about the breach is accepted. More specifically, while your confession might pass the test for R1504(d), it fails R1504(a). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Day 1: The Defendant Steps out of His Box. Day 2: The Defendant is Eaten by Vines.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:50 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: I contest this. NoVing someone immediately upon joining is very rude. E ceased to play for a month, let em be. Dodging punishments by leaving the game is permitted -- but don't expect to rejoin without paying your dues. -- Taral tar...@gmail.com Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
