On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:40, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: > > coppro violated Rule 1922, a power-1 Rule, by failing to award > > me the Patent Title Three Months Long Service as soon as > > possible after I had continuously held the office for three > > months. > > Judgement: > > This is straightforward GUILTY - 1 Rest. However, I'll mention > that it is Rude on behalf of the caller; while the Officer is > required to track it (and thus can't escape responsibility), it > is much more reasonable to remind officers of automatically- > triggered events with long fuses before dinging em. Also, This > Judge remonstrates the caller for bothering to call a criminal > case rather than letting it go as an NoV. I think the 1-Rest > fine is the lightest wrist-slap short of discharge; in the > current economy it's easier to clear a rest than write an > apology. -G. > I called for a CFJ rather than an NoV for two reasons: 1. I was not it was something that was REQUIRED in such a way as to trigger the ASAP clause. 2. An NoV would have punished coppro with (I believe) 2 rests, which we both agree is excessive. A CFJ allows for a reduced sentence. Also, I did remind coppro before calling the CFJ.
