On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Without positive evidence that the purpose of the partnership's existence was > to violate that responsibility, it should be assumed that such violations were > not R2169 "events proceeding as envisioned". For one party to break that > responsibility materially harms the partnership in a manner that can, and > should, > be dealt with through direct and specific adjustments through the equity > court; > at the very least covering salary lost to the PNP due to losing the position.
I think everyone's forgetting that the PNP is the projection into Agora of a nomic-- a codenomic, no less, where traditionally, _any_ technically possible move is legal. As the metarules show, PerlNomic has strayed somewhat from that tradition and adopted the "here is a permissive form, please don't abuse it" mentality. But I highly doubt the real reason for the uproar was some incorrect boilerplate text which nobody reads anyway-- that was just an excuse to punish me for the distribution, which people disliked: in part because I was lazy and didn't make it a full distribution (this I apologize for), but also because I was able to use the PNP to aid a scam by controlling the time of the distribution. The relatively loose controls on making distributions are quite explicitly part of PerlNomic's "rules". At least one of the authors of the promotor system desired this in order to aid scams; and the mechanisms of that system were voted on and enacted in a nomic by majority consent. Yes, I'm the one that pulled the trigger, but any scamster, perhaps with a far more dangerous scam in mind, could have done the same. Being able to control the time of distribution is a great advantage in several kinds of scams, especially the sort where something needs to be done just before the close of voting, and the PNP let me control it. This fact is, at least in part, responsible for whatever material damage the PNP has suffered, and I don't even know Perl very well. I'd also like to remind everyone that I believed that failing to fix the loophole, or even letting word get out, would be very dangerous to the game (because people might make all sorts of weird unrecorded actions). I was wrong, and I did fumble the execution of the whole thing (really, I should have guessed the BlogNomicites would alert Agora), but those were my intentions.
