Jamie Dallaire on Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:29:51 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] Questioning

> > 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

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

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

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).

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