c. wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:30 AM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> and if 2029 is modified or repealed, it should be >> via a scam that's powerful enough to modify it, probably with everyone >> not involved in the scam try to stop it. > > It would be a fitting end for Rule 2029, but a scam to repeal a > historical rule succeeding in spite of everyone else trying to stop > it? I *guarantee* it won't end well. Having been on both ends of > scams, they can be fun even for the scammed players, but not if they > think that the scammers are acting Against the Spirit of the Game, in > which case it quickly degenerates into ugliness. And no matter how > hard I try, I can't entirely suppress the initial knee-jerk reaction > of "you scammed me, asshole". If the discussion evolves past that > stage, scams can make for very good gameplay on both sides, but if it > doesn't, they cause much grief and deregistration. > > In this case, R2029 is such an important rule that the only way I can > imagine this could work well would be if Goethe and Murphy explicitly > consented to the repeal if the scam worked (while in-game, trying to > stop it with every means possible). > > R2029, do not go gentle into that good night...
I didn't come up with "it came in on a scam, it should go out on a scam" (IIRC I first heard it during a phone call with OscarMeyr a year or two ago) but, having heard it, I agree with it (provided that the scam clearly does work, i.e. does not rely on a retarded-monkey interpretation; IIRC the scam that created it, once revealed, was promptly agreed to have worked).
