Where is it in the initial (not the first invalid one, but in the
"resubmission with corrections" message)?
"resubmission" is not a formal thing so independence is assumed. And if
SHALLS were allowed to be fulfilled after-the-fact, many corrections
could have been made once they were pointed out.
(this is not a decision yet).
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I sorted it by docket, both initially and in a subsequent message,
> fulfilling the requirement. There is no requirement that an argument
> neatly fall onto a single docket.
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:50 PM Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 20:45 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > wrote:
> > > Your Honor, My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada seems to have made a fatal
> > > error in the presentation of eir reasons for G.A.N. of Agora's
> > > eksallance. In
> > > eir argument, e stated that e would present six reasons. However, he
> > > proceeded to present five reasons. Your Honor, I do not believe that
> > > making such false statements before the court should be tolerated.
> > >
> > > Your Honor, while I concur with My Fellow Counselor Aris's objections
> > > to many of My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada's reasons, I intend to argue
> > > that the arguments before the court are needless division. I believe
> > > that My Fellow Counselors V.J. Rada and Aris are engaging in a petty
> > > battle to divide the Great and Ancient Nomics when it would be most
> > > beneficial to all, if the Great and Ancient Nomics were to come
> > > together in cooperation to attempt to develop a better understanding
> > > of the theory and practice of Nomic and develop a larger following to
> > > address the problems that My Fellow Counselor Aris noted, regarding
> > > the lack of dedication within the playerbase of the Great and Ancient
> > > Nomic of Agora. To this end, I propose that a Joint Commissions on
> > > the
> > > Shared Interests be formed to address those issues that affect the
> > > Great and Ancient Nomics, with representatives from all interested
> > > nomics.
> >
> > I believe this is invalid due to contradicting fantasy rule #4: it
> > doesn't fall neatly into any given docket and isn't labeled as
> > pertaining to any particular docket (the first paragraph is procedural,
> > the rest isn't really).
> >
> > Of course, I'm not the judge, so it might be ruled differently.
> >
> > --
> > ais523
>
