DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Surveyor] [Probably] Weekly Report

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 22:29 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> It is no longer possible for me to impose summary judgement on
> Cuddlebeam, as e is presently not a player. I actually do have a good
> argument for why a card would be appropriate, but it’s irrelevant, as
> carding Cuddlebeam now would not be possible under r. 2479 (“Official
> Justice”). Accordingly, the only option before me is to find this
> finger-pointing to be Shenanigans.

You could nonetheless make the argument for the benefit of the Herald's
Fugitives list, which is entirely unofficial. (I'm not 100% sure it
would even apply in this situation, but it sort-of fits.)

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Surveyor] [Probably] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jul 20, 2017, at 9:14 AM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:

> I Point a Finger at Cuddlebeam for a violation of R2471 for attempting
> to publish a Surveyor report when e was not the Surveyor. As
> Cuddlebeam has had over a week since the CFJ ruling that e was not the
> Surveyor and one week since I announced intent to Point a Finger about
> this report, I would recommend either a Yellow Card or Red Card.
> 
> I also would like to point out there is an existing CoE on this report
> [1], so it has not ratified. I also argue that given the amount of
> time permitted to retract the report, a retraction now would not clear
> R2471's bar for Faking.

Since I have some time to evaluate this, yet: presupposing for the moment that 
Cuddlebeam originally had a bona fide belief that e had become Surveyor when e 
published the report, and given that the report is factually correct in 
content, does failing to retract it meet r. 2471? I’m not actually sure it does:

> A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e knows is IMPOSSIBLE 
> so as to deceive others.

I can’t see a way in which inaction is an attempt to perform an action, without 
taking some of the same leaps of creative interpretation that already have us 
so frustrated.

I’m more than happy to engage on the givens, too - I’m not at all sure 
Cuddlebeam did have a bona fide belief, even in spite of my previous finding of 
Shenanigans on a closely-related matter.

Insight welcomed from all comers.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Surveyor] [Probably] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> In line with Murphy's ruling in CFJ 3539, I intend to Point a Finger
> at Cuddlebeam for violation of R2471 if e does not retract this report
> in a timely manner

I wondered this when Quazie 'retracted' eir report the other day: does
'retracting' a Report actually do anything?

pseudo-CFJ:  When someone "retracts" a document that e previously published
(other than Proposals, ballots, and CFJs for which retraction is explicitly
defined), it has the same effect (via the common definition of 'retract') as 
issuing a claim of error on it.

Thought: "Retract" = "CoE on one's own report" might be a useful explicit
definition to add to the rules.