Well, I thought the sentence was pretty minor (more so than APOLOGY), but that's subjective. Feel free to appeal.
Sent from my iPhone On May 12, 2013, at 9:26 PM, Tanner Swett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:13 PM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: >> I assume the defendant received the bounce message immediately after >> attempting to post the ruleset, so e could have reasonably avoided >> breaking the rule by various methods, such as splitting the ruleset >> into parts or possibly posting a link to it along with its hash. >> However, all of these workarounds are fairly annoying, so a light >> punishment is appropriate. GUILTY/COMMUNITY SERVICE, destroy 1 VC (as >> a R2354 cost for completing the task) within 1 month. > > The rule breach seems extremely minor in my opinion, since the rules > are kept up to date at > https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~charles/agora/current_flr.txt anyway, > and Rulekeepor woggle did in fact attempt to publish eir report. While > publishing a message in multiple parts does indeed count as publishing > the message (by CFJs 1451 and 1452), I don't think this method of > publishing large messages is obvious. > > ―Machiavelli
