=========================  Criminal Case 3226  =========================

    I violated Rule 2143 by publishing inaccurate information in the
    quoted report.


Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Murphy
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
                                        12 Jun 2012 14:54:54 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:34 PM, omd <c.ome.xk@gmail.com> wrote:


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
ratify it.


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inaccuracies implied are a missing rule (which wasn't repealed when it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

6272 nc
6287 nc
6302 nc
6303 nc
6335 (I think I thought this was too vague to do anything - see CFJ 2548)
6348 nc
6375 np
6405 (originally posted as adopted but actually rejected)
6423 ip
6443 np
6451 nc
6477 nc
6503 np
6514 np
6545 nc
6556 nc
6568 np
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)
6645 np
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.

6680 nc
6683 nc
6684 nc
6685 nc
6711 (originally posted as adopted but actually rejected)
6719 (bad wording)
6720 (condition failed because proposals were enacted out of order)
6738 (condition failed)
6740 nc
6745 nc
6753 nc
6756 nc
6759 ip
6770 np
6783 nc
6786 nc
6795 nc
6797 nc (actually amended a contest)
6800 nc
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.
6843 np
6858 (originally posted as adopted but actually rejected)
6862 nc
6883 np
6884 (redundant rule repeal)
6902 ip
6912 (condition failed)
6947 nc
6966 nc
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)
Support Democracy

      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.

7016 nc
7017 nc
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.

7037 ip
7046 (missing framing text)
7052 nc
7089 np
7094 nc
7096 nc
7111 (originally posted as adopted but actually rejected)
7115 ip
7129 nc
7140 nc
7144 ip