OT (??) - Prohibition on Coaching Change Posts Act of 2010
For those of you that have been waiting, below is an official copy of the Prohibition on Coaching Change Posts Act of 2010. For those of you that are predisposed to comply with the terms of the Act, I suggest printing the below and posting it in your cubicle, office, dorm room, or some other location where it can easily be referenced. This act was codified on November 30, 2010 but is always subject to further revision. Please let me know if you see any glaring issues that need to be addressed. Thank you in advance.
The Prohibition on Coaching Change Posts Act of 2010.
Article 1 - Notices
(a) Notices of MGoInfraction shall be "filed" by Profitgoblue as soon as practicable after a violation of this Act.
(b) Notices shall be in writing and shall specifically (i) explain the violation, (ii) inform the offender of the fine levied, and (iii) inform the offender of their opportunity for appeal.
Article 2- Infractions, Defined
(a) Thou shalt not, under any circumstances, discuss Jim Harbaugh in connection with the Michigan head coaching job unless and until Rich Rodriguez has officially been relieved of his current contractual obligations.
(b) Thou shalt not, under any circumstances, lobby for or otherwise argue in support of the firing of Rich Rodriguez until at least the end of 2011.
(c) Thou shalt not, under any circumstances, speculate, opine, or otherwise comment on Dave Brandon's decision timeframe with respect to the head coaching and/or defensive coordinator job(s).
(d) Thou shalt not, under any circumstances, post a personal opinion with respect to whether or not Rich Rodriguez will be fired.
(e) Catch-all provision - additional infractions can be identified at a later date by Profitgoblue in his sole discretion.
Article 3- Penalties
(a) All violations shall carry a minimum fine of 1 MGoPoint, issued by Profitgoblue, with a maximum fine to be determined by the MGoCommunity at large.
(b) Fines are subject to waivers as more fully described below.
Article 4- Waivers
(a) Waivers of Application of the Act - posts that would otherwise be deemed violations of the Act can be excused by formal, written waiver issued by Profitgoblue in his sole discretion.
(b) Waivers of Levy of Penalty - posts that are deemed violations of the Act shall be cited by penalties can be excused by formal, written waiver issued by Profitgoblue.
Article 5- Appeals
(a) All MGoInfractions will be final determinations unless a formal, written appeal is "filed" within twenty-four (24) hours of the initial notice of the infraction.
(b) All appeals must be "file" by posting a reply to the initial Notice.
(c) The merits of all properly-filed appeals, as well as all amicus briefs filed on the offender's behalf, will be considered by Profitgoblue in his sole discretion.
(d) If successful on appeal, the MGoPoints deducted by Profitgoblue will be restored.
(e) If unsuccessful on appeal, the MGoPoints deducted by Profitgoblue will be lost forever. However, a mandatory restoration of MGoPoints shall occur if the ruling on appeal is sufficiently negged.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^
Probably should be "meta"
December 1st, 2010 at 10:58 AM ^
Is it okay to say 'I hope that Jim Harbaugh is offered and receives a nice fat raise and contract extension at Stanford'? It doesn't mention the Division I school in Ann Arbor nor its football coach. But it does mention the other party and their school.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
Thank you for the inquiry. I think your question is addressed in Article 2(a) of the Act which states, in pertinent part, "Thou shalt not, under any circumstances, discuss Jim Harbaugh in connection with the Michigan head coaching job . . .". As such, I do not believe your hypothetical post would violate the Act.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^
I had considered a topic stating that wish for somewhat obvious reasons, but I permanently shelved the idea once I realized how sick I was of the whole topic.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:19 AM ^
I see the MGoCourts taking a very broad reading of the legistlation, regardless of the legislative intent, and expanding the prohibition to include almost any mention of Harbaugh.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
As with local district courts, that is definitely a possiblity. This is precisely the reason for the creation of an appellate body - to keep the trial courts in check. Rest assured that I will do all in my power to be fair, thoughtful, even-handed, and kind to the greatest extent possible.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
I'm not gonna lie, I kind of love you.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
Well then, I love you too. That is until you violate the Act or otherwise break my heart . . .
(Just don't tell my wife)
December 1st, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^
surely you have written proclamations for her as well that would peclude any type of reprecussion regardless of the nature of your "loving" behavior ?
/s
Go Blue !
December 1st, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
Article 2- Infractions, Defined
(a) Thou shalt not, under any circumstances, discuss Jim Harbaugh in connection with the Michigan head coaching job until Rich Rodriguez has officially been relieved of his current contractual obligations.
I would recommend the insertion of the phrase "unless and" before the word "until."
December 1st, 2010 at 1:49 PM ^
See edit above (in italics).
December 1st, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^
And it raises a question:
If Harbaugh was out of the picture, how ardent would the MSM be in their shit-stirring? If they didn't have the chance of the "prodigal son returns home" story practically being written for their lazy asses and that they would consequently have to do actual work, I don't think a lot of them would be harping on this like they are.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
No contra-lobbying until the end of 2011? That seems a bit excessive, even if RR gets a fourth year.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^
Here's the legislative history: This was the most highly-debated provision in the Act. The represenatives in the right side of my brain believed the 2011 date to be both excessive and somewhat arbitrary while the representatives in the left side of my brain wanted the ban to be serious enough to serve as a deterrent. As the left side controls my brain, the 2011 date was written into the Act over the objections of the "right" representatives.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^
So, hypothetically speaking, RR could underperform in any number of ways during the 2011 season (e.g., lose the Big Ten opener to Minnesota, go 0-3 against the "rivals," lose on 10/22, get lit up by Justin Siller on Homecoming, kick when he should go, go when he should kick, etc.), and yet the State-controlled media would enforce a ban on lobbying for change?
Hypothetically speaking, RR could miss a bowl in 2011, but the masses would need to observe a cooling-off/blackout period (from 11/22 or, God forbid, earlier, through and including 12/31) before commencing such lobbying activities?
Again...just want to make sure I understand the ramifications of this new policy.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^
You're treading on thin ice but yes, the answers to your questions are both in the affirmative. The Act will be enforced through the 2011 season, including any bowl game. There is no other way to implement the public policy of me not wanting to read coaching change posts until after next season, no matter how extremely valid, well-reasoned, appropriate, or obvious they may be. Of course, I reserve the right to amend the Act should a policy shift occur during the next year . . .
December 1st, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
Not wishing to suffer the fate of Commodus -- or to fall through the ice -- I'll stand silent and be thankful for Article 5.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
Sounds good to me. I'd like to just find out or bowl game opponent and focus on them.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
Good idea, that way it leaves room for a number of other football topics, like......uh? .....you know like.....uh?.... oh hell...just forget it.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
May I apply for a pre-emptive waiver? I don't usually start threads, I usually just post snarky comments, but if I found the need, I might post one.... Mainly along the lines of something sarcastic....
December 1st, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
This may need to be written into the Act . . . The biggest problem is that the Act was drafted and passed in order to eliminate all discussions/posts/threads about a coaching change unless and until a change is actually made. Obviously, not everyone (or anyone) is going to comply with the Act. I'm hoping it isn't flaunted like a posted speed limit.
The best I can do is leave the decision in your hands at this point. Consider this a gray area in which a post/thread could be cited but then later overturned on appeal. Sorry I could not be more precise in my hypothetical ruling.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^
Hear ye, hear ye .... long llive the King !!!!
So it has been said ... so let it be written !!
And thus the MGo Bloggers were cast into the desert (for 400 days) with nowhere to write their thoughts. They were left to whisper to each other (or their pets) about the ... well, the "unspoken subject". And they felt ashamed of the harm they had caused prior to the proclamation ... and wondered if the world was evergoing to be the same ....
Go Blue !
December 1st, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^
It will obviously come down to specific cases to interpret the broader, more ambiguous provisions of the Act (e.g., what does it mean to "discuss" JH in connection with coaching M?). In such cases, it will be necessary to consider legislative intent, as well as overall public policy as gleaned from mgocommunity.
The real question is whether we should invoke the doctrine of stare decisis in light of how fast new information can come over the "internets."
Is it possible for binding precedent to develop in this particular body of law?
December 1st, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^
I'm way ahead of you. Unlike the system of checks and balances, at the end of the day, this remains a one-man show. As such, I will amend the Act to make it clear that no rulings shall create any precedent, if only because I wish this is how it worked in the real world (it would eliminate all legal research!).
December 1st, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^
I understand. And I can relate. Who wants to get an MgoWestlaw account?
However, I fear that MgoBusinessCommunity will not like how unpredictable this area of law is. They may reject what they see as "MgoCaprice." Businesses prefer bright line rules, not case-by-case analysis/standards.
If they cannot anticipate how certain fact patterns/posts will be analyzed, they may shy away from the blog at large.
These are not easy questions.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:45 AM ^
Please do not ever mention Westlaw on this Board again.
Your points are each well-taken. However, consider this ruling body more akin to English law but with an all-powerful monarchy. The legislators carry out the day-to-day business but, at the end of the day, the king can smash the Act or any actions to implement the Act. That is why the Act contains express language with respect to my decision-making. Unfortunately, the only alternative for disgruntled MGoResidents is to move to Canada . . .
December 1st, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
Nice idea, but will the rules be ex post facto? I'm not saying they should be, but the taste of sweet, sweet MGoJustice for past offenses is intriguing.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:34 AM ^
A decision has been made - the Act will be retroactively applied to all threats/posts to the extent practicable. Thank you for your question.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^
explaining how the act will be funded. thus, it must mean higher taxes.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
Believe it or not, the current budget is sufficient to fund the implementation of the Act. The biggest drag on revuew is the current mortgage and student loan payments. Childcare is a large expense as well as the standard monthly utility costs but current revenue levels and projections appear to more than compensate for the cost of implementation of the Act.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^
with the interest of reducing costs, there is nothing within this legislation that will prevent it from being dumped in the first round of financial efforts, thus making it a neutered legislative effort. additionally, under which department's supervision and oversight would this act fall under?
December 1st, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^
Well, that is definitely an undercurrent. However, as I mention above, consider this more akin to a monarchy. Even extreme discontent from the MGoResidents with respect to funding, for example, will not likely be sufficient to overturn the Act. The "king" is not unreasonable but he is somewhat strong-willed . . .
Unfortunately, I do not think the Moderators will have any interest in enforcement of the Act and, as such, all enforcement, supervision, and oversight will fall upon myself and(?) MGoCommunity at large.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^
THIS IS THE STREETS
A TOWN
December 1st, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
I understand your position completely. As such, I am open to suggestion as to how better to implement the Act more fairly, evenly, and properly . . .
December 1st, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
we place a more significant tax/effect on downvoting a post versus a comment. the influx of points will go to paying for the service while those who create posts that are quickly receiving negative reactions will be barred from responding.
the power to vote will be effectively spread across the community with officials (hereby referred to as MODS) reserving the ability to reverse point loss effects.
this effort requires the implementation of leader designate through enablement and co-sign
December 1st, 2010 at 12:16 PM ^
That all makes perfect sense to me. I only have two reservations:
1. I am not yet prepared to turn over power of enforcment of the Act.
2. The problem of implementation remains . . .
December 1st, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
If this act is passed I will decry it as an unforgivable attack on our civil liberties, despite my total support for the MGoPATRIOT act.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^
I understand your position and respect your opinions. However, please be advised that a more contracted version of the rights granted by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution apply here. Free speech against the Act and/or application thereof is severly limited and will be punished much more harshly than probably expected . . . See the below:
("The gun's stats are formidable: it fires 25mm air-bursting shells up to 2,300 feet (700 meters), well past the range of most rifles used by today's soldiers, and programs them to explode at a precise distance, allowing troops to neutralize insurgents hiding behind walls, rocks or trenches or inside buildings.")
December 1st, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
I'd like to add a rider for $5 million to create an MGoArmy.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
to the Michigan Daily for seamless navigation
December 1st, 2010 at 5:54 PM ^
To mirror our history, it should be an MGoMilitia and the initial amount raised should be $315,000.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:26 PM ^
December 1st, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
Cosigned.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^
Enforcement of this act will cost untold trillions and will run up the national MGoDebt! If this act is passed, profitgoblue will establish "death panels" that will have sole control over what comments are fine-worthy.
This act will cause further MGoRegulation and will be the death of all the MGoSmallBuisiness in America!
December 1st, 2010 at 12:06 PM ^
All necessary precautions have been taken to fully fund the enforcement of the Act.
In addition, the appeals process should provide the necessary oversight to provide even-handed application of the Act. However, I will amend the Act to make it clear that I must take under advisement all amicus briefs filed on the offender's behalf ("amicus brief" meaning statements/arguments made in support of overturning the ruling).
December 1st, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
I will ignore all the reasonable things in the comment above in order to use fearmongering and falsehoods to promote my political and social ideologies!
Ed--I think I'm done now. :) Got it all out of my system.
December 1st, 2010 at 12:14 PM ^
Please see the effect of the Jatlasb Amendment to the Act (language added italicized in the OT) to put more of my skin in the appellate process.
December 1st, 2010 at 12:08 PM ^
How many earmarks will be attached to this thing before it is officially passed?