On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: > This leaves me a little confused as to how an intentionally unfair > judgement system would work, at least for inquiries (it's clear how it > would work for criminal cases). What sort of power does an unfair judge > have on the game? Confusing people as to the correct gamestate until > such time as it gets included in reports and self-ratifies, and then > saying "haha, actually I was lying in my judgement but you all fell for > it"?
As I see it, the existence of the old judgement system (along with Rule 217) implied that the correct way to play the game was to abide by 'reasonable' judgements, meaning final judgements produced by the system in lieu of some clear abuse - there wasn't a risk of the judge's interpretation disagreeing with the Great Platonic Spirit's interpretation, because the latter retroactively became the former. Adding an explicit intent of bias makes the standard for 'reasonable' more ambiguous, but keeps the same general principle, so a credible interpretation picked by the judge should be considered correct even if it would be unlikely to be picked by a more fair judicial system, but a completely nonsensical interpretation (Lindrum) is still to be ignored.
