I wrote: > woggle wrote: > >> On 9/16/09 12:08 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2688 >>> >>> ========================= Criminal Case 2688 ========================= >>> >>> ais523 violated the Power-1 rule 1742 by failing to act in >>> accordance with the PerlNomic Partnership contract by attempting >>> to modify it other than by the proposal mechanism. >>> >>> ======================================================================== >> Note: >> >> Apparently, I wasn't thinking very hard when I specified that Power, >> because R1742 of course has Power 2 and has not had Power 1 for a while. >> Surprisingly, this doesn't affect the criminal case much. > > Not sure if this has gone to a PF, so: > > The NoV behind this alleged case was invalid because it specified > the wrong power, thus the NoV is invalid and the case was not > successfully initiated.
Having received no explanations to the contrary, I have retracted the case from the CotC DB (and reset BobTHJ's posture to Standing). Below is a copy of the arguments I'd collected thus far, in case someone wants to publish a valid NoV etc.. Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2688 ========================= Criminal Case 2688 ========================= ais523 violated the Power-1 rule 1742 by failing to act in accordance with the PerlNomic Partnership contract by attempting to modify it other than by the proposal mechanism. ======================================================================== Caller: woggle Barred: ais523 Judge: BobTHJ Judgement: ======================================================================== History: Called by woggle: 16 Sep 2009 05:58:30 GMT Assigned to BobTHJ: 16 Sep 2009 07:08:06 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: On 9/15/09 6:23 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > ttttpf: [snip NoV] >> I contest this NoV. The PNP quite possibly doesn't exist. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: [ais523's attempt to turn all contracts into mousetraps] For each public contract (see the list at <http://agora-notary.wikidot.com/system:page-tags/tag/public>), I intend, without objection; I intend, without member objection; and I intend, without 3 objections; to replace its entire text with the following: [snip mousetrap text] ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by ais523: As far as I know, no text that has ever been suggested that might be a current text for the PNP allows amendment by any of the methods I intended. Even if the text did, intending to do something is not the same as doing it and, for instance, I could comply with the contract simply by not resolving the intent. ========================================================================
