"As a card was issued, it’s clear that the level of sloppy editing did rise to the level required to meet the CFJ 3472 standard"
I don't believe card issuance is precedential like that in any way. On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > First, the procedural parts, and a note: > > On Sun, 2017-08-13 at 20:42 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I point my finger at P.S.S. for violations of Rule 2143, which states > that: "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." I recommend a sentence of yellow card. These errors, while > independently insignificant, together have a "a significant, though > small, impact on gameplay" (Rule 2427), if nothing else because > they're an annoying distraction. > > > Note that this sentence was upheld by the Referee[0]. > > [0] http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg29045.html > > This will be relevant to the judgement. > > I AP-CFJ "The most recent document, published to agora-official, and > purporting to be the Registrar's report, was not in fact a report." > > > On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 04:58 +0100, Alex Smith wrote: > > This is CFJ 3552. I assign it to omd. > > > On Aug 25, 2017, at 4:51 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > I remove omd as judge of this CFJ (which is actually numbered 3553), > and assign it to o. > > > Now, the meat of the matter. > > On Sun, 2017-08-13 at 20:42 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Caller's arguments: CFJ 2392 makes it clear that deliberately > inaccurate reports are not reports. CFJ 3462 (which I judged) > extended > this to apply to reports that "exhibit gross sloppiness and > negligence, equivalent in severity to lying in the report or not > publishing it." That's a rather high bar to meet, but I believe this > situation qualifies. Here, repeated CoEs and a-d discussion, some of > which involved P.S.S. emself, have discussed the situation. It is > matter well supported by the public record that this error has > occurred numerous times (see for example [1], [2]). Under > circumstances, I believe the CFJ 3462 standard is met. To be clear, > this CFJ raises a Rule 2201 doubt regarding the report. > > [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg29024.html > [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28918.html > > > Aris’ summary of CFJs 2392 and 3462 are correct. As a card was issued, it’s > clear that the level of sloppy editing did rise to the level required to > meet the CFJ 3472 standard: > > In the meantime, while there will never be a bright line for this, the > standard is that the purported report has to exhibit gross sloppiness and > negligence, equivalent in severity to lying in the report or not publishing > it. > > > I find the statement > > The most recent document, published to agora-official, and purporting to be > the Registrar's report, was not in fact a report. > > > to be TRUE. > > -o > -- >From V.J Rada
