Format for e-mail

History:

BobTHJ wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 09:32, Charles Walker
> <charles.w.walker@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Murphy wrote:
>>> coppro wrote:
>>>> Walker wrote:
>>>>> I concur with coppro's arguments (to the extent to which they do not
>>>>> argue towards eir innocence) and intend, with 2 support, to judge
>>>>> GUILTY/SILENCE on 2710 and set the fine at 1 Rest.
>>>> I support.
>>> I also support.
>> Having received two support, I judge GUILTY/SILENCE on Criminal Case
>> 2710, setting the fine at 1 Rest.
>>
> Why are the members of schwa being punished individually instead of
> punishing the person (schwa) that made the violation in the first
> place (and allowing Agora's built in mechanisms of
> rest-distribution-to-basis to take place)? I'm not asking because I
> think one is right and the other is not, I'm just pointing out that
> there are two different methods here. I'm curious if the following
> will generate any rests in the possession of members of schwa or if
> R101 vi will protect them:
> 
> I publish an NOV:
> 
> Schwa violated R2158 (power=2 rule) by not assigning a judgment to CFJ
> 2700 on time.

First, I'm going to address the conflict of interest - I have no 
particular desire to avoid 2 Rests of punishment; 2 Rests mean little, 
and I have a large number of Absolv-o-Matics in supply.

The issue here is whether or not Rule 101 would prevent a repeat 
punishment of any given person. The specific text of the rule is

         vi. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than
             once for any single action or inaction.  However, this
             right is not violated by replacing part or all of a
             penalty with a different but comparable penalty, e.g. when
             the rules governing penalties are amended.

Rule 101 also says

       This rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow or
       mandate restrictions of the rights contained herein.

Since Rule 101 has the highest Power among Rules and the lowest ID 
number, no rule can take precedence over it. Wooble and I have already 
been awarded Rests in criminal cases for violating the terms of ə. In 
this specific instance, it was for causing ə to violate its obligation 
to assign a judgment to CFJ 2700 via the inaction of not attempting to 
have ə assign a judgment. It would therefore violate Rule 101 to create 
Rests in mine and Wooble's possessions by creating them in ə's 
possession (see Rule 2228).

On the subject of whether anyone else would be awarded a Rest, there is 
no reason to suppose that Rule 101's prohibition would apply to Rule 
2228's Rest-redistributing effect as a whole. As a result, I judge CFJ 
2712 TRUE, and CFJs 2713 and 2714 FALSE.