On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 25 Nov 2008, at 19:37, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> So, if a crime is low priority enough that you can't find two supporters, >> why clog the courts with a CFJ process? > > Yay the rules are irrelevant!! Let's use telepathy to determine everyone's > intentions? Wait, we have that, it's called equity...
0. Criminal cases still turn on intentions, you have to knowingly break the rules to be punished. You're not changing that at all. 1. Just stop being an ass. Even when we had infractions, it still required someone to support it or report it. Many went unreported, but you were taking a simple risk of punishment if you counted on that. 2. When you break a SHALL, you take a risk. Half the time you'd get off with an Excused anyway because it was accidental. Why would anyone be wanting to support criminality, unless they had an axe to grind? 3. The instant-reflexive CFJ was just being used when two people were annoyed at each other. If this passes I shall prove my point. I believe I have 5 CFJs permitted per week? And I won't need support to call criminal cases? And an "allegation" can technically include false statements without worry (after all, an allegation is not a claim of truth)? This might be fun. 4. An analogy: if you accidentally (and it was pretty clearly an accident) take one extra bill while playing Mononpoly, someone might say put it back but not get annoyed. Similarly, if you're a couple days late with a weekly report, well, maybe no-one's too bothered. -goethe.
