============================== CFJ 3563 ==============================
The Green card o. issued emself in the below message was illegally
issued, as the green card e issued nichdel was legally issued.
Caller: V.J. Rada
Barred: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Called by V.J. Rada: 23 Sep 2017
I think the most natural reading of "that reason" is the act itself,
not the particular rule breached. That is, someone can be carded twice
for breaking the same pledge on two totally seperate occasions. There
is also a question as to the interpretation of the pledge rule itself.
It says "a pledge is considered broken if...", which may mean that the
pledge is permanently broken, and cannot be broken more than once.
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2017, at 11:45 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
>> As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently gerontocratic
>> system. It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
>> I'm about 95% sure this is the gist of my partner’s argument when she said
>> “inventing money is _rude_” about the original Shinies proposal.
>> I’m not sure I fully appreciated Spending Power while we had it. The debate
>> and adoption predates me. I’ve long had a fascination with throughput-based
>> monetary systems like Total Annihilation’s metal economy, where the driving
>> numbers are the amount of money in per time, not the amount of money in the
>> pile, and SP is as close as I’ve ever seen to that in a political system.
> On Sep 23, 2017, at 12:30 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>> I point the finger at nichdel. He replied to CB in discussion again.
> As recently discussed, this is over a pledge under rule 2450, made by
> nichdel, which reads:
>> I pledge to not acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or
>> to respond in a-d to anything CB does.
> This pledge was previously broken, and punishment for that breach
> issued from this office on Sep 20, 2017, at 1:39 AM Eastern Daylight
> The message quoted above is, indeed, in response to a message from
> Cuddlebeam, and violates the above-quoted pledge. Issuing a second
> card for the same pledge appears to violate rule 2426, which reads in
>> A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless:
>> * there has not already been a Card issued for that reason; and
> Therefore, as issuing a card would be ILLEGAL, I find this finger-
> pointing to be Shenanigans.
> I issue nichdel a green card by summary judgement, as required by rule
> 2478, for violating rule 2450.
> I issue myself a green card by summary judgement for violating rule
> 2426, as cited above.
> I’ll note that I’ve now issued nichdel a card by summary judgement
> twice in a week, and myself a card twice in a week. It is no longer
> possible for me to card either of us for the remainder of the week,
> rules requiring me to do so notwithstanding.