Goethe wrote:
I call for judgement on the following criminal case:
Goethe, while holding the office of Notary, did breach the
terms of eir office contained in Rule 2173 by identifying
the membership of the private contract known as the AFO
without the consent of its members or as allowed by the
contract.
Gratuituous arguments:
To the best of my knowledge, Goethe has not been informed of the
current membership and contract of the AFO, only of its membership
and contract at the time of its formation. For all e knows, either
or both of these may have changed via private messages since that
time. E may make an educated guess that they haven't, but Rule
2173 does not prohibit em from disclosing such a guess.
Rule 2173 does not prohibit em from disclosing the AFO's membership
and contract at the time of its formation, either; these things are
already known to the players in general, so there is nothing to
disclose. Extending this to implications is a trickier business; for
instance, my unchallenged claims "I cause the AFO to <x>" are strong
evidence that its contract still allows me to cause it to act, but
weaker evidence that this is by virtue of continued membership.
