On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >>> Proposal: Generalize equity >>> (AI = 1.7, please) >>> >>> Amend Rule 2169 (Equity Cases) by appending this text: >>> >>> An equity case CAN be initiated identifying the ruleset in place >>> of a contract. For the purpose of such a case, the ruleset is >>> treated as a contract with all players as parties. >> >> proto-CFJ: it's inequitable that several players have more points than me. >> > proto-trivial judge reply: equity in initial chances does not guarantee > equity in outcomes.
Actually you're right. This doesn't work in that it means one could litigate perfectly legal backstabbing, reducing someone else's caste, etc. which we don't want. I think a more appropriate way would be to say that: "After a finding of Guilty, in place of a Sentence, an equity settlement could be imposed [with appropriate safeguards]." -Goethe
