From - Sat Jun 24 13:14:01 2000 Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by pilot022.cl.msu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA49804 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:00:49 -0400 Received: from runyon.mail.mindspring.net (runyon.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.239]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA10703 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:00:50 -0400 (EDT) X-MindSpring-Loop: elysion@mindspring.com Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by runyon.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sl5rnu.f0a.37kbi7f for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:00:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA28640 for agora-official-list; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 04:45:43 GMT Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA28637 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 04:45:41 GMT From: magika@aracnet.com Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id OAA78397 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:55:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail3.aracnet.com(216.99.193.38) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma078395; Fri, 23 Jun 00 14:55:33 +1000 Received: from shell1.aracnet.com (shell1.aracnet.com [216.99.193.21]) by mail3.aracnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA10217 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:54:31 -0700 Received: by shell1.aracnet.com (8.9.3) id VAA27361; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:54:29 -0700 Message-Id: <200006230454.VAA27361@shell1.aracnet.com> Subject: OFF: CFJ 1232 Judged FALSE by lee To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-off) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:54:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Status: RO X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: 3954c93a00000016 ============================== CFJ 1232 ============================== Taral currently has at least 3 Blots. ======================================================================== Called by: Taral Judge: lee Judgement: FALSE Judge selection: Eligible: lee, Wes Not eligible: Caller: Taral Barred: - Had eir turn: Chuck, Harlequin, harvel, Kelly, Murphy, Palnatoke, Peekee, Sherlock, Steve, t Already served: - Defaulted: - Previously Defaulted: Harlequin, Sherlock By request: Blob, Crito, Michael On Hold: Palnatoke Zombie: Anthony, Harlequin, Novalis, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Taral: 22 Jun 2000 13:03:16 -0500 Assigned to lee: 22 Jun 2000 18:45:12 -0700 Judged FALSE by lee: 22 Jun 2000 21:55:07 -0500 Judgement Distributed: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: ======================================================================== Judge's Arguments: Taral was blot free in the June 12 Report. Kelly blotted em for tardiness which is only a .5 infraction. Then Kelly blotted, or at least tried to blot em for Promotor Misrepresentation. That is a Crime. Penalties for Crimes are only applied by Sentencing Orders which in turn are only issued by judges. Kelly was not a judge. Taral was not blotted for Promotor Misrepresentation. By my count e only has .5 blots. I judge the statement false. ======================================================================== Judge's Evidence: It is my informed belief that Promotor Taral committed the Infraction of Promotor Tardiness when e failed to distribute any Proposals during the Nomic Week beginning May 29th. Taral is therefore hereby penalized 0.5 Blot. Kelly > It is my informed belief that Promotor Taral committed three acts of Promotor Misrepresentation when e incorrectly distributed the Proposals labeled as Proposals 4017, 4018, and 4019. Taral is hereby penalized one Blot each for each of these Infractions, for a total of three Blots. Authority for this Infraction flows from Rule 1770. I hereby claim that the Proposals distributed as Proposals 4017, 4018, and 4019 were part of this week's Batch, since there were three undistributed Proposals all of which had higher Priority at the start of this Nomic Week. Kelly Rule 1770/11 (Power=1) Distributing Proposals The Current Batch for a given Week is a subset of the Proposal Queue. Its contents shall be calculated at the beginning of that Week. It shall contain every Disinterested Proposal then in the Proposal Queue, as well as: * all Interested Proposals in the Proposal Queue with Priority greater than zero, if their number is not greater than the Batch Size; or * a set of Interested Proposals in the Proposal Queue with the highest positive Priority the cardinality of which is equal to the Batch Size. Ties for highest Priority shall be broken in favor of those Proposals which have been in the Queue the longest. During a Week, the Promotor must distribute all and only Proposals in that Week's Current Batch. Failure to Distribute all Proposals in that Current Batch during that Week is the Class 0.5 Infraction of Promotor Tardiness. All Players are authorized to detect and report this Infraction. Knowingly and willfully distributing a Proposal (or text purporting to be a Proposal) not in the Current Batch is the Class 2 Crime of Promotor Misrepresentation. All Players are authorized to detect and report this Crime. A Player may make a Claim of Error stating that a distributed Proposal was not in the Current Batch at the time it was distributed. If this is admitted, then: * the Voting Period for that Proposal shall immediately end; * all Votes cast on that Proposal shall be cancelled; and * the Promotor shall add the Proposal to the Proposal Queue. Once a Proposal is distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Queue. The Promotor shall distribute each proposal in the batch to the Public Forum, accompanied by its number, the identity of its Proposing Entity, and an indication of whether the Proposal is Ordinary or Democratic. The failure of the Promotor to distribute any of the above accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive the distribution of the Proposal of any legal effect. A Proposal is only considered to be legally distributed if it is explicitly marked as such. The Promotor is permitted to publish the text of undistributed Proposals without necessarily distributing them. Immediately after all Proposals in the Current Batch have been distributed the Promotor shall reduce the Priority of all Proposals remaining in the Queue to half of their previous values, rounding fractions down. Rule 1503/4 (Power=1) Crimes and Infractions Any entity who performs an action defined by the Rules to be a Crime, or fails to perform an action where such failure is defined by the Rules to be a Crime, shall be subject to whatever penalty the Rules prescribe for that Crime upon the execution of a Sentencing Order executed consequent to a judicial finding that e did in fact commit that Crime. ========================================================================