BobTHJ wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:43, Ed Murphy<emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>> BobTHJ wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:15, Ed Murphy<emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> BobTHJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The "with N support" mechanism for NOVs is very messy. This proposes
>>>>> to replace that with a simple "with support". It also removes the
>>>> This would allow the CotC or Justiciar to launch a successful
>>>> five-lights scam with just one other conspirator.
>>>>
>>> True, but the problem with the 5-lights scam was not the NOV
>>> publication. It was the ability to publish, contest, CFJ, and sentence
>>> all in the same message. The with N support 'fix' for NOV publication
>>> attacked the wrong problem.
>> The real problem is that a sentence of SILENCE imposes Rests
>> immediately; imposing delays earlier in the process wouldn't stop the
>> C-or-J and eir confederate from (a) submitting sufficiently many NOVs
>> and (b) sentencing and activity-juggling all in the same message.
>>
>> One possibility is to allow only (say) five sentences of SILENCE to
>> take effect per day, delaying additional sentences in 1-day increments.
>>
> Why not just wait to impose rests until the judgment is un-appealable?
Because, for non-scam cases, it's generally already been delayed:
1) Violation occurs
2) Someone NoVs
3) Someone contests NoV
4) Someone initiates criminal case
5) CotC assigns judge
5b) Judge may drop the ball for a week
5c) CotC recuses, assigns new judge
5d) New judge may also drop the ball, etc.
6) Judge decides that both GUILTY and SILENCE are appropriate
particularly after step 4.
Also, it's one more Platonic delayed-effect for the Insulator to track.
