Atlasia v. Antonio V

[afleitch]

If the Court permisses, I would like to make a statement as amicus curiae in this case on behalf of Antonio V

[afleitch]

Mr Supreme Justice, distinguished Justices.

I have always been of the opinion that all claims made to the Court are grievances that on which legitimacy or illegitimacy should not be conferred based upon how large, small, pressing or trivial they may seem. However the charges brought against Antonio I believe lack any foundation on which to argue in their favour. On the question of 'intent'; was Antonio expressing any malice or maliciousness in changing the party colour of the Populares to avoid what he perceived to be a 'confusion' with past party colours? This I feel is the weakest thrust of the argument made by the prosecution. Only then, when intent is satisfied can the Court look at whether he is guilty of removing 'legitimate' content. The prosecution concedes that party colours are not enshrined in law. It also concedes that no law states that party colours have to be distinctive from earlier parties. I would therefore ask the Court to consider whether party colours, which the prosecution concedes are not covered, governed or protected by law or statute qualify as 'legitimate' content.

If I may be permitted to be a tad pedantic, we are told that the colour is being changed from 'Emerald' which is cited as the official Populares party colour. However records indicate that this colour is in fact Paris Green, a hue derivative of copper.

At most Antonio can be considered to be 'guilty' of pedantry or stubborness.

Thank you, your Honours.

[afleitch]

Your Honor, I'd like to ask Mr. afleitch to support his claim about Paris Green being a recorded Populares colour, as on Populares wiki page (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Populares) it is clearly stated that Emerals is a party colour.

Also, we believe that waging an edition war perfectly fits maliciousness.

That is not what I said. If I may clarify; the code given for the correct 'emerald' Populares colour here:

THIS

Is in fact 50C878 - Paris Green. Which is a colour hue derived from copper. My point was it is difficult to accuse Antonio of changing the colour of Populares from 'Emerald', when it is debatable that the colour chosen was Emerald in the first place. Note he hasn't changed the name 'Emerald', merely the colour chosen to represent that hue.

He could argue that...

THIS

...could also represent the colour Emerald.

[afleitch]

I really do hate to intrude in an ongoing legal case... But if that colour is not emerald, than Libertas is guilty of vandalizing the wiki as well, no?

While the issue over the colour palette itself is not the main thrust of my argument then yes there has been some back and forward. Officepark set it as 50C878 in February, Antonio changed it to 00CCCB. Libertas changed it back, but back to 5EDA9E then a minute later to 009E60 then 00A86B and so on...

Again, different interpretations of the colour.

[afleitch]

I really do hate to intrude in an ongoing legal case... But if that colour is not emerald, than Libertas is guilty of vandalizing the wiki as well, no?

Since people are intruding to make false claims, allow me to set the set the record straight here. 50C878 is not an "interpretation of emerald'". It IS emerald.

50C878 is the hex code given for Emerald on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variations_of_green#Emerald


Do a Google search for 50C878. The first result that comes up:

http://www.colourlovers.com/color/50C878/Emerald

It's Emerald. "Paris Green" is just another name for Emerald.


http://www.webexhibits.org/pigments/indiv/overview/emerald.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Paris Green is the name given to the chemically produced colour 'Pigment Green 21' which has been 'coverted' into 50C878. Despite what it is named (and you also point out the various names given to that colour) it will always remain a derivative of copper.

It is by no means the definative 'emerald'

There is also; 2C8139 - Emerald Green, for example.