Roger Hicks wrote:
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 13:34, Charles Walker
<[email protected]> wrote:
I publish a NoV accusing BobTHJ of violating Rule 2143, a Power 1
Rule, by publishing an Anarchist's report on the 10th of September,
2009 claiming that C-walker does not own any cards from the Deck of
Change. I contest this NoV and initiate a criminal case from it.
Arguments: My report does clearly state (in the history section) that
C-Walker's current holdings are in dispute. I recommend NOT GUILTY.
BobTHJ
_______________________________________________
Agora mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
I do not see that anywhere. Searching for C-walker's name shows nowhere
in the report that indicates eir holdings may be ambiguous.
Note that officers are not as a matter of course expected to put
disclaimers at the top of their reports, rather, they are required not
to put inaccurate or misleading. When the game state seems to be truly
ambiguous (and not that it is merely subject to an interpretation and
thus is in one of a certain number of states), it is, in my opinion,
criminal misconduct to attempt to ratify that the player in question has
no cards. Publishing instead that eir number of cards is unknown is
completely permissible, as it is accurate and not misleading; failing to
indicate that e has cards at all is both inaccurate in all probability,
as well as misleading.
-coppro
_______________________________________________
Agora mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
