========================= Criminal Case 3226 =========================
I violated Rule 2143 by publishing inaccurate information in the
Judgement: GUILTY/COMMUNITY SERVICE
Called by omd: 07 Jun 2012 19:52:08 GMT
Defendant omd informed: 07 Jun 2012 19:52:08 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 12 Jun 2012 14:28:22 GMT
Judged GUILTY/COMMUNITY SERVICE by Murphy:
12 Jun 2012 14:54:54 GMT
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:34 PM, omd wrote:
> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
omd admitted to the error pointed out by Yally, which occurred
while omd (then nicknamed c. / comex) was Rulekeepor, and did
most of the legwork to search for any similar errors that would
still have substantive effects.
Community service: Publish a corrected ruleset and attempt to
Judge Murphy's Evidence:
[Yally, Sat, 9 Jun 2012 01:06:56 -0400]
So, I just realized the rules never took notice of proposal 6671,
adopted on March 22, 2010 and affecting Rule 1367. This also means
that parts of proposal 6717 were ineffective.
[omd, Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:47:31 -0700]
The most recent ruleset ratification was on 2011-01-02.
Here is a list of proposals which were listed as adopted since May
2009 but do not appear anywhere in current_flr.txt,v. As you can see,
it's a bit of a mess, though as far as I can tell the only ruleset
inaccuracies implied are a missing rule (which wasn't repealed when it
should have been) and a missing amendment.
(I'll deal with these, fix the history, and rulekeep the latest batch
tomorrow or so.)
nc: no rule changes
np: text to replace not present
ip: insufficient power
6335 (I think I thought this was too vague to do anything - see CFJ 2548)
6405 (originally posted as adopted but actually rejected)
6587 (condition failed)
6607 FAIL (2010-01-31) - This should have taken effect:
Amend Rule 1769 by replacing
b) the future event would occur during a Holiday, then the
future event occurs 72 hours after the end of that Holiday
b) the future event would occur during a Holiday or during the
72 hours immediately following a Holiday, then the future
event occurs 72 hours after the end of that Holiday instead.
This was ratified away on 08-27, before the next Holiday.
6612 (originally posted as adopted but actually rejected)
6614 (originally posted as adopted but actually rejected)
6661 FAIL (2010-03-10) - Should have removed an obsolete clause from
Rule 2203. The next amendment to that rule, a month later, replaced
the entire rule.
6671 FAIL (2010-03-22) - This is the one that started this
investigation. The rule text was ratified on 08-27; in the meantime,
a decision to award ais523 a degree was initiated but, as far as I can
tell, never resolved. Since all but one of the votes on that decision
were for FAILING GRADE, the change shouldn't have affected anything.
But the ruleset should note that Proposal 6717 only made a power
change, and the change by ratification.
6711 (originally posted as adopted but actually rejected)
6719 (bad wording)
6720 (condition failed because proposals were enacted out of order)
6738 (condition failed)
6797 nc (actually amended a contest)
6806 FAIL (2010-08-27) - This included a ratification but also a power
change to Rule 1551 (3 to 3.1) to fix ratification of rulesets. The
next (and last) ruleset ratification on 2011-01-02 took advantage of
the fix, then promptly unfixed it.
6858 (originally posted as adopted but actually rejected)
6884 (redundant rule repeal)
6912 (condition failed)
6971 FAIL, but not mine? (2011-01-02) - Murphy tried to pay a fee to
move emself in the List of Succession, referring to CFJ 2941, then
made votes that, if invalid, would affect the outcome of 6918 and 6925
(which would be rejected) and 6971 (which would be adopted). I think
that, the way CFJ 2941 came out, they were invalid... but neither
Wooble (the actual Rulekeepor at the time) or I (not a player, but
keeping track independently) changed the ruleset to refject it. Does
anyone remember if there's some context I'm missing?
The voting results were disclaimered, so they didn't self-ratify. If
the votes were invalid, then rules 2177 and 2321 have different
history, and we have this rule floating around:
Rule 2142/5 (Power=2)
A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision in its
voting period to be democratic.
6971 itself had no effect. The SLR ratification took effect an hour
later, but the ratified document predated both.
7019 FAIL (2011-05-05) - This should have taken effect:
Amend Rule 1868 (Judge Assignment Generally) by replacing "second-class
players" with "entities other than first-class players".
This did not break the subsequent change.
7046 (missing framing text)
7111 (originally posted as adopted but actually rejected)