On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Roger Hicks <pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree completely, and that is exactly what I am trying to prevent in > this case. I believe that dependent actions ARE NOT broken. I have > interpreted the rule differently than comex. By preventing this > judgment from moving forward I have (in my opinion) prevent the courts > from ratifying a falsehood (dependent actions are broken)
Incorrect judgements aren't self-ratifying (and neither is the SLR, though your website seems to disagree). While this neat little paradox is sort of judicial abuse, illegally delaying the case when it's almost certain to be judged FALSE-- even if the appeal results in REASSIGN-- is far worse in my opinion. More than once I've witnessed-- and carried out-- scams which turned out to violate the Rules. Nobody ever intends to carry out an illegal scam, for a pragmatic reason: scams tend to annoy people. If the scam is illegal, you are likely to get a large punishment. Although right now we have a maximum sentence, in the past there was always the threat (if not the reality) of EXILE. But if it toes the line and stays legal, no matter how annoyed everyone gets, nobody can touch you. That's the original theory, I suppose, and it still holds true as some scams end up in quite heated arguments, but somehow the effect got separated from the cause. Now scams are considered legitimate gameplay if and only if: (1) they don't severely mess up the game, and (2) they don't violate the rules. If it violates the rules, they suddenly become illegitimate-- just see the response to Pavitra's "highly illegal scam" thread-- and it is bad form to execute them, even if you are willing to pay the penalty. ais523 takes this theory to the extreme, and is generally quite shy of going anywhere near illegality; I'm more moderate but I toe the line. Perhaps I've learned my lesson from P1-100, or the false claims that I performed duties related to a contest... as I said, nobody ever *intends* to carry out an illegal scam... Delaying the judicial system does not change the precedent, and it's not in the best interests of Agora. Thus I consider it a scam, and it annoys me to have scams I consider illegitimate executed against me. So, apologies for a harsh tone. CFJ outcomes aren't binding. If you want to change the precedent, call a new case, where there can be a more serious discussion. I realize that would be letting me and the other players involved get away with a "scam" (which isn't giving anyone a win, btw)-- but treat this as a scam like any other. You may counter the scam if you have the legal means to, which you presently don't, but it's not directly in the best interests of Agora that the scam be defeated. To be honest, I think that the outcome of a new case will be the same. Remember, as a panelist you now have the opportunity to publish a formal Dissenting Opinion. > have drastic consequences on the game (because if interpreted from > comex's perspective dependent actions would have been broken long > before my proposal recently amended the rule). I've explained why this isn't true. The "if-then" is used in the mathematical sense and worked until your proposal amended the rule. -- -c.
