Re: [s-b] [s-d] [change] Ballot for nweek 160 - 03 Nov 2009.

[Charles Walker <charles.w.walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

2009/11/5 Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:09 PM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:31:42 +0000
>>> From: charles.w.walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [change] Ballot for nweek 160 - 03 Nov 2009.
>>>
>>> 2009/11/4 Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:05 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Why do you think you're ineligible to vote for your own proposal?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Because e hasn't read the ruleset?
>>>
>>> Proto: Make knowing what the Rules are a SHALL. Although generally
>>> this couldn't be enforced, we could prosecute when people provide us
>>> with strong evidence that they haven't read the rules, such as in
>>> Marr's case.
>>
>>
>> This could be done as an extension of R81 - e can't provide adequate reason why e would believe that e is not eligible to vote on
>> a particular Â(the rules and actions of other voters contradict em) therefore e is making a false statement.
>
> Per the above, I publish a Notice of Violation alleging that Marr965
> violated rule 81/0 ("Truthiness," a power-1 rule) by publicly making a
> false statement that e merely unreasonably believed to be true in eir
> ballot for nweek 160.

I contest this and initiate a criminal case from it, requesting double
rests because lack of knowledge on matters directly related to the
rules is an especially heinous offense.

-- 
Charles Walker
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business