On 17 Aug 2013 19:37, "Tanner Swett" <swe...@mail.gvsu.edu> wrote: > > Brief further arguments: I think GUILTY is wholly inappropriate on 3383, as Fool had no way of knowing eir actions would be considered to violate Rule 101. At most, it would be appropriate to declare his actions illegal and then judge NOT GUILTY. > > —Machiavelli
It may be worth noting that Fool did seem to expect and encourage counterscams, unfair treatment, opposition etc.
