> On May 22, 2017, at 9:53 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Regardless if the Pink Slip is valid, I get the feeling that a Red Card of > some sort ought to be coming forthwith given the level of ire incited, but my > gauge on that front may be inaccurate. Personally, I think Gaelan should not > be trusted with the office of Rulekeepor, and should be removed from it in > addition to being barred from other report-generating offices, but it is my > understanding that Rulekeepor is an intensive duty that Agora cannot go > without, and there is no other candidate who wishes to take the mantle, > including myself. > > 天火狐
Fortunately, “ire” is not the deciding factor. A red card is appropriate: > for serious and deliberate violations of the rules and > for a person who appears to be part of an attempt in bad faith to swarm Agora > and outpower the regular players in voting strength. Neither appears to be the case, here. We can discard the “swarm” case entirely, for reasons I hope are obvious, and deal only with the “serious and deliberate violations of the rules” case. R. 2152 (“Mother, May I?”) and r. 2125 (“Regulation Regulations”) together spell out what actions are considered to violate the rules. In the latter: > The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions. So no actions other than those proscribed can possibly merit a Red Card. In the former: > CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to perform the described > action are unsuccessful. > > MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing the described > action violates the rule in question. > > NEED NOT, OPTIONAL: Failing to perform the described action does not violate > the rules. > > SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the described action, > the full implications of performing it should be understood and carefully > weighed. > > CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful. > > MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the rules. > > MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the described action > violates the rule in question. > > SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform the described > action, the full implications of failing to perform it should (in the > ordinary-language sense) be understood and carefully weighed. So only actions that contravene a MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, or PROHIBITED clause, or an inaction contrary to a MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, or MANDATORY clause can violate the rules. NEED NOT, OPTIONAL, and MAY clauses can moderate that, but that still limits our search space. I believe that Gaelan did not violate any such clause in the rules. The closest clause I can find is in r. 2143 (“Official Reports and Duties”), where the clause > A person SHALL NOT publish information that is inaccurate or misleading while > performing an official duty, or within a document purporting to be part of > any person or office's weekly or monthly report. appears. However, nothing was inaccurate or misleading about the intention buried in the FLR: it accurately and completely described an action Gaelan intended to take. It was made inappropriately difficult to find, but it was not false and it’s very hard to interpret the intention other than in the plainest way. Separately, Gaelan has alleged that I deserve a Card for violating the rules. I think e’s got a cogent argument. From r. 2426 (“Cards”): > A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless: > * the reason is appropriate for the type of Card being issued; This is a SHALL NOT, so violating it is a violation of the rules. If I inappropriately gave Gaelan a Pink Slip, then I deserve a card appropriate to breaking the rules. I hope that I’ve presented a defence that my actions were not “serious and deliberate,” and that that card should be a Yellow Card, but I cannot avoid the accusation entirely until the CFJ is settled. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
