Gratuitous: The interpretation suggested by the caller is absurd. Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 17, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Sean Hunt <scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > I publish an NoV alleging that Keba violated Rule 2143 and committed the > Class-2 Crime of Tardiness by failing to publish the List of Succession in > the week beginning on September 6 of this year. I contest this NoV and > initiate a Criminal CFJ from it. > > Arguments: > > There are five conditions for being guilty. > > Now, conditions (b) and (c) are trivial and won't be discussed. (e) is true > as Keba could have chosen not to assume Herald and therefore would have > avoided the breach (and left G. to make the breach). > > Since the violation depends on a technicality (that I will describe) that > Keba probably was not aware of, one could argue that (d) is not satisfied. > However, CFJs 1857 and 1858, as well as convention, provide that ignorance of > the law is not appropriate grounds for finding someone to not be guilty of a > violation. This extends to the technicality; it was Keba's duty, assumed as > Herald, to know the relevant rules in their completeness. > > Now, for the controversial bit. Rule 2315 says that "[the list published by > the Herald to bootstrap] becomes the List of Succession." It does not say > that the List of Succession becomes the same as the bootstrap list, it does > not say that it is reordered to match. Rather, it says that /that specific > list/ became the List of Succession. > > This has two main consequences: > > The first is that a legal fiction is created that the message containing the > bootstrap list keeps changing. > > The second is that it is impossible to publish the List of Succession, as it > would only be a copy. > > Therefore, the alleged List of Succession report in the aforementioned week > was not actually a publication of the List of Succession, and thus a failure > to perform duties. > > -coppro > > -coppro
