On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed; as it was, all the accused needed to be able to do was present > an argument that what they were doing was legal, and (d) would > exonerate them by virtue of them having an argument.
I don't think that was a bad idea, actually. Wooble's argument *was* eminently reasonable (modulo a very confused set of CFJs and an uncontested self-ratifying report) and based on existing game custom; we shouldn't punish players because the outcome went the other way after close inspection.
