Re: [s-d] [s-b] Questioning

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

Beautiful, just beautiful. Just what I was fishing for. Too bad I can't call
it consistent myself.

On 8/20/08, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > I submit the following Consultation:
> > > > {{ Is Charles currently the Minister of Law?
> > > > Unbeliever: Charles
> > > > Reasoning: Proposal 379, which passed, quote, "Set the Powers of
> 'Rule
> > > > Powers and Precedence' and 'In Case of Emergency' to 1.
> > > > Charles did not display these Powers, (as of the submission of
> > > > this Consultation) but displayed that all rules were 1/2 (unless
> > > otherwise
> > > > specified), on the Rules page.
> > > > I submitted a transaction (August 16) that removed him from the MoL
> on
> > > > August 18, on the condition that he had not fulfilled his obligation
> > (and
> > > > that he held the ministry).
> > > > }}
> > > > /* Let's see how far this will go. I'm guessing it goes FALSE. But
> the
> > > > ball's in your court Charles. */
> > >
> > > This is Consultation #126.  I assign it to Priest Billy Pilgrim.
> >
>
> Here is the Priest's Answer to Consultation 126: TRUE
>
> Reasoning:
> {
> The Unbeliever's Arguments (see below) are, in essence, valid. That said,
> they only apply to the current situation if his statement that the omission
> was accidental is true.
>
> Having no practical or reliable means of ascertaining Charles' honesty, but
> finding no grounds on which to doubt it, and in accordance with humanist
> principles (and in the absence of any guidance from the Rules), the Priest
> considers that the Unbeliever is innocent of malicious omission until
> proven
> guilty.
>
> We may consider that Charles' Public Display of Rule Powers (or the absence
> thereof) was (de facto) challenged on nday 5 of nweek 147 by Ty-Guy6's
> submitted Transaction, set to occur place 2 rdays later. The B Nomic wiki
> clearly shows that Charles attempted to correct his (The Priest believes,
> accidental) omission promptly after Ty-Guy6's challenge.
>
> The further error (of Rule 4E0's power being equal to 1) left by Charles
> was
> likely accidental as well. Ty-Guy6's forced removal of Charles from his
> post
> at the MoL would, in the Priest's opinion, have required a new challenge to
> be issued and no reasonable attempt to be made to rectify the Public
> Display.
>
> Finally, it may be the case (though the Priest is unsure) that Ty-Guy6's
> removal of Charles would have failed even if Charles had made no such
> corrective attempt. Rule 4E50 states that a Minister becomes obligated to
> address a challenge or make the required corrections once this challenge is
> issued. Rule 4E53 states that a Minister has a Jiffy to fulfill obligations
> on his Ministry. The Supplicant's removal attempt came less than a Jiffy
> after his challenge.
>
> If the Supplicant wishes to argue that the Transaction he submitted did not
> constitute a de jure Challenge (defined as a specific game action by Rule
> 4E50), then it is the Priest's opinion that his case would only suffer from
> it. The provision for the issuing of challenges clearly serves a vital
> function in assessing whether any errors or omissions in a Public Display
> are the product of malice or sloth [[or afk-itude]] (in which case a
> Minister may lawfully and judiciously be removed) or rather of negligence
> or
> circumstance ( in which case e may not). In matters where such intent is
> ambiguous, a Minister's removal is likely not possible without due process
> (a formal challenge).
> }
>
> Oracularity:
> {
> Whereas the source of a Minister's Public Display errors or omissions is
> quite imperfectly assessed:
>
> Add the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph of Rule 4E53:
> {{
> In the case where the only obligations a Minister has failed to fulfill
> within the allotted time concern the incompleteness or fallaciousness of
> eir
> Public Display, however, e may only be removed after an explicit challenge
> to said Public Display has been issued and has not been addressed within
> the
> allotted time.
> }}
>
> [[The aim of this Oracularity is to take the subjective question of intent
> out of the mix and replace it with a more objective one: has the minister
> addressed a direct challenge, i.e. has he made a move to redress the
> situation after it became apparent that the error or omission could not
> simply be attributed to negligence?]]
> }
>
> Priest Billy Pilgrim
>
> >
> > Unbeliever's Arguments: Rule 4E50 states "If the rules require a Ministry
> > to
> > maintain a public display, then that Ministry is obligated to update that
> > public display to reflect the current gamestate whenever the data related
> > to
> > it is modified. However, this obligation is fulfilled even if there are
> > accidental errors and/or omissions in the updated data of the public
> > display." My omission was accidental and has been corrected. (
> > http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Category:Rules/Power%3D1)
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>



-- 
  -Tyler
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss