The legal adequacy of this I will leave to actual players to determine; as a kibitzer I merely wished to note that it is an artistic triumph. Bravo, Fool!
On 10 July 2013 11:50, Fool <fool1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > HER FELINE MAJESTY DAVY I > versus > TANNER SWETT (aka MACHIAVELLI) > > > > Charles Walker on behalf of the Crown alleges that Machiavelli failed to > pay a fine ordered by CFJ 3310, wherein the defendant was convicted of > failing to publish an IADoP report, and for which the judgement was, in its > entirety, "GUILTY - FINE (2 VCs)", handed down by Charles Reiss (aka > woggle). > > It seems the Crown in this case presents no further evidence, and > Machiavelli has nothing to say for himself either. So who gets to do the > digging for you? Muggins, eh? > > Very well: it turns out that while the defendant did have quite a few VCs > when 3310 was initiated (April 22), by the time sentence was passed (May > 18, took long enough) all VCs had been reset (May 8), so he had no VCs to > destroy. Nor did he thereafter earn a VC, until proposal 7450 passed (June > 10), and then VCs were reset (June 17). His next VC was from proposal 7477 > (June 29), and this case was initiated 3 days later (July 2). > > I quote Rule 1504: > > When a sentence has been assigned as part of a GUILTY judgement, > the Accused is known as the ninny, and the sentence is in > effect. > > The valid sentences are: > [...] > * FINE with an amount of one class of asset, appropriate for > rule breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid > if the currency's backing document binds the ninny (the Rules > are considered to bind all players) or the ninny has this > amount of the asset, and the backing document specifies a > maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the > maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL, in a timely > fashion, either destroy this amount of eir asset or transfer > it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged > to perform one destruction or transfer per case, even if > sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into > effect more than once. > > There are some questions in my mind about this rule, foremost, who wrote > this junk? I suppose this is the Agoran pragmatism that people keep raving > about? Sure, during Agora XX we complained about Agora's initial ruleset, > didn't we, well now, you guys have had twenty years, and this is what you > all came up with ... look, never mind, rule 217 instructs me to apply > common sense and to consider the interests of Agora, and by that standard > it is clear that everyone is guilty here. So I just need to find > appropriate punishments. > > Charles Reiss, for your sentencing antics, I fine you twenty berks (same > as in town), and I haven't bothered to check if you have any berks, nor do > I even know what berks are good for anyway. I just know that if you don't > pay, there'll be trouble. Possibly involving a pointy stick. > > Charles Walker, for making me dig through archives unnecessarily, I > sentence you to print out a hard copy of the agora-official mailing list > from May onward, therewith to beat yourself over the head until you are > cross-eyed. > > Tanner Swett, for starting this mess by not writing a simple report, I > sentence you to three days at a dismal job where you'll be constantly > pestered for totally pointless reports like that guy on Office Space. > > The rest of you, smarten up. Consider yourselves lucky that I'm in a good > mood, because I'm usually a hanging judge. > > This judgement takes effect immediately. Long live the Queen. > --Daniel Mehkeri > > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
