I issue ATMunn a Blue Card. The penalty shall be 2 shinies, one of which shall be distributed to PSS and one of which will be distributed to Agora (this penalty does not have to be paid unless a fine is levied).
I have said before that I will be very willing to issue non-green cards and I am. The infraction at issue here is not de minimis. ATMunn's omission of the quorum is a crime that could lead to confusion among voters and more work for the Assessor, who must now emself find the quorum. Penalties shouldn't be based on the newness of the player, but the infraction itself (although obviously culpability should sometimes be assessed eg: a player caused by another player to break the rules). This crime is not completely minor and ineffectual. Having said that, a yellow card is blatantly inappropriate here: it's a minor mistake in the word formulation that we've all made. I therefore turn to the blue card, our newest card and the one that provides the most discretion. The blue card is not only appropriate for players who "profit" from infractions, but also for players who significantly harm Agora or other players. Significantly just means "great enough to be worthy of attention". This is a breach that does harm other players, and causes work and confusion. However, I impose what is nearly the lowest penalty possible in recognition that the breach is not particularly serious, nor intentional. Note, if anyone disagrees with this card, my Contract iSnack 2.0 at least arguably provides for an avenue to hold me liable for it. On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I recommend a Green Card, on the basis that e was both a new player > and new to the office. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Oh, good point. Sorry about this mess. I believe ATMunn still violated > > SHALLs and therefore I point my finger at em for failure to state the > > quorum. > > > > On 11/05/2017 09:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> If no rule says it's an essential parameter, it isn't an essential > >> parameter. There's no reason to read that into the quorum rule. R107 > >> states that the initiation must include "any additional information > >> defined by the rules as essential parameters", I see no such > >> definition here. > >> > >> > >> -Aris > >> > >> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >> <p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> I think quorum is an essential parameter, given the SHALL requirement > >>> associated with it. > >>> > >>> On 11/05/2017 08:52 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 at 20:50 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >>>> <p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > >>>> <mailto:p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Sorry about this. CoE: Quorum was not specified on the first > Agoran > >>>> Decision, therefore neither decision was initiated. > >>>> > >>>> I wish I had noticed this earlier, but I was starting to count the > >>>> votes > >>>> and went to check quorum and saw that it was missing. > Unfortunately, I > >>>> think this means that you can never intiate this decision because > you > >>>> CAN only do so in a timely fashion. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I don't think that's true. Nothing says that an initiation is invalid > >>>> without a quorum. The rules are explicit that an incorrect quorum > >>>> invalidates a decision, but even without that, rule 879 is power 2 and > >>>> can't override a valid initiation at power 3 I think. > >>> -- > >>> ---- > >>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >>> > >>> > > > > -- > > ---- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
