On Monday 07 January 2008 19:19:16 Iammars wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008 7:29 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 07 January 2008 17:24:09 Ian Kelly wrote:
> > > On Jan 7, 2008 5:15 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > My apologies. Not a criminal case, so I can't appeal it directly. I
> > > > support this intent to appeal.
> > >
> > > If I understand Iammars' somewhat laconic arguments correctly, e is
> > > pointing out that R2159 defines the only mechanism for initiating a
> > > protective decree, and so a protective decree categorically cannot be
> > > submitted to Steve Wallace whether e is a nomic or not. Submitting
> > > one would thus violate R2159 in the sense that R2159 declares it
> > > impossible.
> > >
> > > If you really want a ruling on the matter that you intended, whether
> > > it is legal to *claim* something to be a protective decree to Steve
> > > Wallace, then I suggest you create a new case with a better-worded
> > > statement.
> > >
> > > -root
> >
> > I submit the following CFJ:
> > "It is a violation of rule 2159 to falsely claim that something is a
> > protective decree to Steve Wallace (the biological person, not
> > necessarily the player)."
>
> That would still be the same argument. R2159 says that protective decrees
> can only be submitted to protectorates. In order for a protective decree to
> be sent to Steve Wallace, he would have to be a protectorate first.
> I would reccomend calling judgement on whether Steve Wallace can be a
> protectorate.
But R2159 says:
All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,
that a document is a protective decree.
That is what I'm testing. The rule does not specify whether that's falsely
claiming to a *protectorate* that a document is a protective decree, so such
an argument is pointless.
