Arguments: I disagree with the claim that the standard of clarity is "heightened" from a normal by announcement action. The rule says that it has to be clear that the notice is a notice of honor, but it doesn't say that that clarity can't come from the title. Here it's very clear from content, context, and the title combined that the the message was a such notice. This is on a par with Rule 478's requirement that a by announcement action must be "unambiguously and clearly specif[ied]", and so this case should be treated similarly to by announcement actions.
-Aris On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Telnaior <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > There's plenty of dissent, so may as well? > I spend an action point to initiate a Call For Judgement on the statement > "Telnaior attempted to publish a Notice of Honour that was invalid solely > because she had already posted a valid Notice of Honour within the current > week.", and bar VJ Rada from the case.
