========================= Criminal Case 2307 =========================
The PerlNomic Partnership violated Rule 2215 by announcing that I am
a party to it in the quoted message.
Judgement: NOT GUILTY
Called by Machiavelli: 10 Dec 2008 05:10:54 GMT
Defendant PerlNomic Partnership informed:
10 Dec 2008 22:32:37 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr: 18 Dec 2008 23:45:41 GMT
Judged NOT GUILTY by OscarMeyr: 19 Dec 2008 00:11:24 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by Sgeo:
How can a codenomic intend much of anything?
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> I zoop a criminal case against the PerlNomic Partnership for violating
> Rule 2215 by announcing that I am a party to it in the quoted message.
> Arguments: Codenomics generally aren't very smart, so they usually
> can't be blamed for their mistakes, but I've been a non-party for so
> long that this really should have been fixed by now.
If this doesn't work, I intend, with two support, to initiate the same
criminal case; act on behalf of Sgeo, ehird, and comex to support it;
and initiate it.
Further arguments: A codenomic intends to mislead when it does
something misleading but nobody does anything about it.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:38 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
> This message serves to announce and make effective changes to
> the list of parties to the PerlNomic Partnership (a public contract).
> The current list of parties is:
> ihope firstname.lastname@example.org
Gratuitous Arguments by woggle:
I believe Warrigal is the Executor of the quoted message from the PNP
(based on http://nomic.info/perlnomic/log.txt ).
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
Relevant line of the log cited by woggle:
Tue Dec 9 20:38:54 2008 - update_agora.cgi: ihope sent a message with
subject 'PNP Parties Change' to Agora.
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
The PerlNomic Partnership contract includes this clause:
5. The PerlNomic Partnership shall act by using the mechanisms of the
PerlNomic game to send messages to the appropriate Agoran fora. This
is the only mechanism by which the PerlNomic Partnership may act.
which is effective whether or not Warrigal is considered to have
agreed to the contract. (Interpreting otherwise would cause all
messages triggered by GoogleBot to be ineffective, which would be
against the best interests of Agora, PerlNomic, and the PNP.)
However, if Warrigal triggered the message in question with full
knowledge of what it would contain, and without making an attempt to
change it first, then that would be a strong argument in favor of
sufficiently "explicit, willful consent" (or at least a sentence of
Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:
The PNP log shows:
1. The Caller emself caused the PNP to send the message in question.
2. At the time of the message in question, a proposal in PNP was
being prepared to remove the Caller from the PNP.
I find it difficult to conclude that a non-member of the PNP would be
able to trigger such functionality of the PNP with intent to decieve
Agora about that person's membership in the PNP. Without strong
evidence to the contrary, I conclude that the Caller was acting as if
e was a party to the PNP at the time in question. The effort to
remove em from the Partnership shows that the other parties were also
acting as if the Caller was a party.
I conclude that the PNP did not act with intent to mislead Agora
(guilt statement a), and so I rule NOT GUILTY.
Judge OscarMeyr's Evidence:
The relevant portion of the PerlNomic log.
Tue Dec 9 20:38:54 2008 - update_agora.cgi: ihope sent a message
with subject 'PNP Parties Change' to Agora.
Tue Dec 9 20:54:33 2008 - propose.cgi: woggle proposed
Tue Dec 9 20:54:45 2008 - edit_proposal.cgi: woggle edited
Tue Dec 9 20:55:06 2008 - edit_proposal.cgi: woggle edited
Tue Dec 9 20:55:06 2008 - edit_proposal.cgi: woggle closed
Tue Dec 9 20:55:19 2008 - vote.cgi: woggle voted yes on
Wed Dec 10 03:50:10 2008 - vote.cgi: Wooble voted yes on
Wed Dec 10 04:12:59 2008 - vote.cgi: ihope voted no on