On Sun, 23 Oct 2016, Aris Merchant wrote:
> 2. E has attempted to create a proposal, not only during an open case,
> but IN EIR ARGUMENTS. By doing so, e has shown insufficient respect for
> these proceedings. E is expected to limit eir arguments to matters
> related to the case, and to refrain from taking further game actions in eir
> arguments, unless e can show substantial precedent that this is normal
> practice.
Milud, if I may say so with respect as the Humble Scribe of the Court,
Milud, it is not atypical (that is, it sometimes happens, Milud) that a
person makes judicial arguments that include an assertion that "this
argument shows that something is unclear or needs fixing" and follows
said assertion by making said Proposal for said fixing at the conclusion
or in the context of the Arguments before the Court, Milud.
If I may say so, Milud, this Humble Scribe believes that this shows a
proactive attitude towards the legislative process, especially if the
closed loophole is being proposed by the personage who found and exploited
the loophole, Milud, while of course deferring to your opinion and while it
might have been better if e more clearly delimited the boundaries between
argument and proposal in eir submission, in this matter rather than rebuke
I might instead consider such a thing Rightly Done, Milud.
This Humble Scribe did not take the Proposal to be part of the arguments
in any case, Milud, and the Proposal shall be stricken from the case log.
