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

[Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:10 AM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Evidence: Regardless of any recent communication, Marr965 sent a message to spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx on the 17 October 2009 stating that e had read the ruleset.
>
>
>
> Arguments: Marr965's recent messages have shown e has not read the rules on voting, the part of which that is relevant to the messages sent having not changed since e supposedly read the ruleset. This indicated that the original claim of ruleset reading was a lie and violates rule 81.

But this NoV deals with a specific act.  E can't be found GUILTY just
because e may have broken the same rule with a different, earlier act.
 And I doubt any of us has 100% perfect knowledge of everything in the
ruleset.
-- 
Wooble
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss