Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 12:12 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote: > Not sure if this changes anything at this point, but the above failed > as ais523 didn't have any favors (e transferred them to the PBA on Nov > 20). What, all of them? I thought I had a spare... Maybe not, though, it gets hard to track all the assets going round. If you think that anyone has been mislead by this, feel free to start an equity case (a criminal case over the matter should be judged UNAWARE, probably). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 15:11 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another interesting data point: I was playing Cheat with a single deck > > of cards with some friends. Someone called "two fives", and put down > > two cards. So I called "three fives", and put down the other two fives, > > in a squared-up way so other players could not easily count the number > > of cards I'd played. > > I've always played that you must play in order starting with twos, so > after someone plays fives you must play sixes, making your scam > impossible. I believe Hoyle's version includes this feature. Being > able to play whatever rank of cards you want seems to me to make the > game way too easy. I prefer the version of the game you suggest; however, in the version we were playing at the time you had to play cards of the same value as, or one more or one less than, the previous value played. The one-more-or-less version tended to lead to games in which nobody dared to call Cheat! at all; I'm not sure if that was just our play style, but it lead to relatively boring games. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Another interesting data point: I was playing Cheat with a single deck > > of cards with some friends. Someone called "two fives", and put down > > two cards. So I called "three fives", and put down the other two fives, > > in a squared-up way so other players could not easily count the number > > of cards I'd played. > > I've always played that you must play in order starting with twos, so > after someone plays fives you must play sixes, making your scam > impossible. I believe Hoyle's version includes this feature. Being > able to play whatever rank of cards you want seems to me to make the > game way too easy. Me too.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Sunday 30 November 2008 02:11:32 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another interesting data point: I was playing Cheat with a single > > deck of cards with some friends. Someone called "two fives", and > > put down two cards. So I called "three fives", and put down the > > other two fives, in a squared-up way so other players could not > > easily count the number of cards I'd played. > > I've always played that you must play in order starting with twos, > so after someone plays fives you must play sixes, making your scam > impossible. I believe Hoyle's version includes this feature. > Being able to play whatever rank of cards you want seems to me to > make the game way too easy. Me too, actually; the version of the scam I saw was to play 4-5-5 (for example) and declare two fives.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another interesting data point: I was playing Cheat with a single deck > of cards with some friends. Someone called "two fives", and put down > two cards. So I called "three fives", and put down the other two fives, > in a squared-up way so other players could not easily count the number > of cards I'd played. I've always played that you must play in order starting with twos, so after someone plays fives you must play sixes, making your scam impossible. I believe Hoyle's version includes this feature. Being able to play whatever rank of cards you want seems to me to make the game way too easy.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Sunday 30 November 2008 09:04:40 am Alexander Smith wrote: > At this point, I admitted > what had happened; and the other players there considered it to be > unacceptable to lie about the number of cards played, even though > it was acceptable to lie about their values. I've always played that you can do that, but you have to own up to it if you get called out. Cheating is allowed /to the extent that/ you can get caught. (Thus, hiding cards under the table on someone else's turn would be forbidden, because if anyone calls cheat then it won't be on you.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> > Reminds me of the card game where, on your turn, you have to place
> > down one or more cards of a certain number, and say what you're
> > putting down ("two fives")-- except you can lie and put down different
> > cards than what you say. If someone else calls you out on lying,
> > you're punished if he's right, but he's punished if he's wrong. The
> > fun of the game therefore mainly comes from breaking the rules without
> > being called on it.
> > (yeah, I forget the name)
> Either Cheat or I Doubt It, depending on who you play with. When I play
> it (and there are multiple rulesets available for playing it, some of
> which are broken, by the way), I feel free to put down the wrong cards;
> however, that's because even though putting down the wrong cards is
> challenged by a call of "Cheat!", it doesn't violate the rules of the
> game.
>
> Another interesting data point: I was playing Cheat with a single deck
> of cards with some friends. Someone called "two fives", and put down
> two cards. So I called "three fives", and put down the other two fives,
> in a squared-up way so other players could not easily count the number
> of cards I'd played. The other player had been 'honest' with their
> play, so immediately challenged me, knowing that I could not have put
> three fives on top of the deck (because e'd just played two of them
> and there were only 4 in the deck). When the top three cards of the
> deck were inspected, they all turned out to be fives, obviously. At
> this point, I admitted what had happened; and the other players there
> considered it to be unacceptable to lie about the number of cards
> played, even though it was acceptable to lie about their values. (Then
> we took the move back and continued as if the illegal move hadn't been
> played, which is a common solution to the rules being broken in most
> games.)
Similar data point: I once won a few consecutive games by occasionally
quickly putting down a large number of cards (e.g. 5) in a squared up way
while claiming out loud that I was setting down e.g. 3 queens. Whenever
anyone would call me on it, they'd actually find 3 queens on top. Though
this clearly allowed me to get rid of my cards with abnormal speeds, no one
noticed since the games were pretty fast-paced.
When I told the other players after a few games, they also considered it to
be unacceptable. I argued (and partly believed) that it should be alright to
perform illegal moves in a game called Tricheur (f. Cheater), especially
given that it is based around "cheating" (in a legal way).
We didn't look for any solution such as taking the moves back since the
games were already over and we weren't keeping track of wins, though I
suspect my wins would have been discounted if we had been.
BP
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 30 Nov 2008, at 15:04, Alexander Smith wrote: > >> Either Cheat or I Doubt It, depending on who you play with > > or "Bullshit" I transfer one prop from ehird to ehird (a minor) for the use of profanity.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On 30 Nov 2008, at 15:04, Alexander Smith wrote: Either Cheat or I Doubt It, depending on who you play with or "Bullshit"
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
comex wrote:
> Reminds me of the card game where, on your turn, you have to place
> down one or more cards of a certain number, and say what you're
> putting down ("two fives")-- except you can lie and put down different
> cards than what you say. If someone else calls you out on lying,
> you're punished if he's right, but he's punished if he's wrong. The
> fun of the game therefore mainly comes from breaking the rules without
> being called on it.
> (yeah, I forget the name)
Either Cheat or I Doubt It, depending on who you play with. When I play
it (and there are multiple rulesets available for playing it, some of
which are broken, by the way), I feel free to put down the wrong cards;
however, that's because even though putting down the wrong cards is
challenged by a call of "Cheat!", it doesn't violate the rules of the
game.
Another interesting data point: I was playing Cheat with a single deck
of cards with some friends. Someone called "two fives", and put down
two cards. So I called "three fives", and put down the other two fives,
in a squared-up way so other players could not easily count the number
of cards I'd played. The other player had been 'honest' with their
play, so immediately challenged me, knowing that I could not have put
three fives on top of the deck (because e'd just played two of them
and there were only 4 in the deck). When the top three cards of the
deck were inspected, they all turned out to be fives, obviously. At
this point, I admitted what had happened; and the other players there
considered it to be unacceptable to lie about the number of cards
played, even though it was acceptable to lie about their values. (Then
we took the move back and continued as if the illegal move hadn't been
played, which is a common solution to the rules being broken in most
games.)
--
ais523
<>
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
Murphy wrote: > As CotC, I support. ais523? I am shocked that you would support the judgement of a CFJ without any reasoning. Nevertheless, I support. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
Taral wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The online Notary's report says you joined 2008-11-06. >> >> ... Here we go. In the thread "Racketeering": >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Hm, why did I do that? I don't know, why did you? Here it is in the agoranomic.org archive: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-November/015720.html
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The online Notary's report says you joined 2008-11-06. > > ... Here we go. In the thread "Racketeering": > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hm, why did I do that? -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Friday 28 November 2008 10:32:36 pm Taral wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> As it is now, the Protection > >>> Racket has three first-class parties (BobTHJ, Taral and ehird) > >>> and about twenty first-class non-parties. I think they're > >>> outnumbered. > >> > >> Not me. > > > > You don't think you're outnumbered, or you don't think you're a > > party? I distinctly remember you joining shortly before I left. > > I don't believe I ever joined the Protection Racket. The online Notary's report says you joined 2008-11-06. ... Here we go. In the thread "Racketeering": <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> As it is now, the Protection >>> Racket has three first-class parties (BobTHJ, Taral and ehird) and >>> about twenty first-class non-parties. I think they're outnumbered. >> >> Not me. > > You don't think you're outnumbered, or you don't think you're a party? > I distinctly remember you joining shortly before I left. I don't believe I ever joined the Protection Racket. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As it is now, the Protection >> Racket has three first-class parties (BobTHJ, Taral and ehird) and >> about twenty first-class non-parties. I think they're outnumbered. > > Not me. You don't think you're outnumbered, or you don't think you're a party? I distinctly remember you joining shortly before I left.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As it is now, the Protection > Racket has three first-class parties (BobTHJ, Taral and ehird) and > about twenty first-class non-parties. I think they're outnumbered. Not me. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 09:44, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: >>> It's not an "interesting test", it's complete and >>> utter bullshit that is frankly destroying something I have enjoyed for >>> nearly eight years. I really, really hope somebody does something >>> comparable to something that you enjoy one day. >> >> >> So why not fix the rules instead of complaining about it? > > In Monopoly, Risk, or any other game, no matter how well the rules are > written, if the game is ruined because you are playing with a sniveling > little rules-breaking shit, the game is ruined because you are playing > with a sniveling little rules-breaking shit. > tsk, tsk, tskI know you are passionate about this topic but there are little ears listening. I'd de-prop you but I already used my prop transfer for the week. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I intend, with 2 support, to a criminal case against Warrigal for >> violating rule 2157 by acting in such a manner that the appeals panel >> for CFJ 2273a does not meet all its obligations by deliberately >> causing it not to deliver a judgement, in the above-quoted message. > > I'd say UNIMPUGNED, as the appeals panel hasn't failed to meet its > obligations yet. INNOCENT, rather. I love this game. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Friday 28 November 2008 09:44:35 am Kerim Aydin wrote: > The unappealable thing hasn't changed, I think it was "always" that > way, so it's just attitudes somehow, don't know why. I have > noticed Callers tend to put much less effort into arguments than > they used to, and original judges aren't willing to judge > "UNDETERMINED - lack of caller effort" as much. I wonder if the > return of DISMISS would help. Don't know why the fear of Affirm is > there either. Even an "unappealable" judgement can be effectively > overturned by a new case if anything new comes up - precedent is > something but not everything. -G. I would support a separate judgement for "the caller is lazy"; perhaps UNCONTESTED?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
comex wrote:
> Reminds me of the card game where, on your turn, you have to place
> down one or more cards of a certain number, and say what you're
> putting down ("two fives")-- except you can lie and put down different
> cards than what you say. If someone else calls you out on lying,
> you're punished if he's right, but he's punished if he's wrong. The
> fun of the game therefore mainly comes from breaking the rules without
> being called on it.
>
> (yeah, I forget the name)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_(game)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rules, by specifying how to handle a breach in the rules, and what
> results in-game from them, have legalized rule breaking. In game, you
> can break the rules if you think you can stand the punishment or dodge
> it, because this is coded explicitly into the rules as the courts
> system.
>
> And this kind of meta-trickery is, in my opinion, very nomic.
Reminds me of the card game where, on your turn, you have to place
down one or more cards of a certain number, and say what you're
putting down ("two fives")-- except you can lie and put down different
cards than what you say. If someone else calls you out on lying,
you're punished if he's right, but he's punished if he's wrong. The
fun of the game therefore mainly comes from breaking the rules without
being called on it.
(yeah, I forget the name)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On 28 Nov 2008, at 16:57, Alexander Smith wrote: (ehird) There are no metarules, more or less; although it's best not to scare off other people because the game is better as a result To elaborate: The rules are the only source for what's _right_ in nomic. The keyword is that nomic is a GAME, and thus innate moral standards regarding gameplay are ridiculous; either regulate it or accept it... I do not do some things because I don't want to (e.g. deregister people to make a scam work) but that's just because I would want them to stay playing instead of just forgetting about it, etc. I'm up for deregistering people to make a scam work if the situation seems ok, though. The rules, by specifying how to handle a breach in the rules, and what results in-game from them, have legalized rule breaking. In game, you can break the rules if you think you can stand the punishment or dodge it, because this is coded explicitly into the rules as the courts system. And this kind of meta-trickery is, in my opinion, very nomic.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
ais523 wrote: > Arguably: the rules no longer say you have to obey the rules, so you > don't. We replaced that with punishments instaed. As previously noted, R2141's "a rule may ... prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour" is probably the closet remaining analogue. > There has been a lot of rulebreaking > recently, mostly late reports; it's gone unpunished because nobody has > gone to the effort of punishing it. As previously noted, during the Infraction era, routine violations were punished more frequently (there was neither the social stigma of clogging the judicial process with trivial cases, nor the selfish concern that someone else would earn a Note for judging a trivial case). Of course, some violations will always go unnoticed, which is why Platonic punishments are a bad idea. I haven't read the latest Rests proto yet; presumably it would take things back in this direction. > What's really causing the rift here is a disagreement in opinion as to > the extent to which people have to follow the rules. Goethe and I both > seem to think the rules should be literally followed; however, Goethe > also wants the spirit of certain rules (such as CFJs) to be followed, > whereas I don't necessarily, which leads to a big difference in play > style. Most players seem happy to allow rules breaches, though, and > just try to punish them via the courts; and if the courts are scammed, > the courts are scammed, it's the same as any other sort of scam. I take a more (small-p) pragmatic view; if the courts are scammed, I propose fixing the scam, because I figure that's more likely to be effective than stamping my foot and shouting "how dare you!". > (ehird) There are no metarules, more or less; although it's best not > to scare off other people because the game is better as a result > > (ais523) The rules are the rules, follow them, and see how well you > can do working around them > > (Goethe, I think, correct me if I'm wrong) Certain parts of the game, > such as the CFJ system, are important and have to stay above petty > scamming, or the game will become unplayable This reminds me of Caliban and Prospero in Roger MacBride Allen's Asimov trilogy (just the sets of laws, not the morality or immorality of the individual characters following them).
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
Goethe wrote: > In Monopoly, Risk, or any other game, no matter how well the rules are > written, if the game is ruined because you are playing with a sniveling > little rules-breaking shit, the game is ruined because you are playing > with a sniveling little rules-breaking shit. "Rule 101[/0] is included precisely so that it can be amended; if players amend or repeal it, they deserve what they get." -- Suber Arguably: the rules no longer say you have to obey the rules, so you don't. We replaced that with punishments instaed. Looking at this another way, anything inside the nomic is arguably fair game to modify: CFJs, rules-obeying, etc.. I'm not sure if I agree with this argument, but it seems clear that many players do. If, for instance, you feel that everything about the CFJ system, including the judgements as well as the arguments, is sacred, fine; but either remove it from the ruleset, or make it very clear in the rules that this is the case, or people will continue to try to scam it. Likewise, there is no by-default meta-agreement that people have to obey the rules, it seems (I'm basing this on apparent game custom not personal opinion); at the moment, if a player breaks the rules they're punished if they can't scam eir way out of the resulting criminal cases. There has been a lot of rulebreaking recently, mostly late reports; it's gone unpunished because nobody has gone to the effort of punishing it. What's really causing the rift here is a disagreement in opinion as to the extent to which people have to follow the rules. Goethe and I both seem to think the rules should be literally followed; however, Goethe also wants the spirit of certain rules (such as CFJs) to be followed, whereas I don't necessarily, which leads to a big difference in play style. Most players seem happy to allow rules breaches, though, and just try to punish them via the courts; and if the courts are scammed, the courts are scammed, it's the same as any other sort of scam. I think the real reason that players Leaving in a Huff is so common in Agora is that different people have different ideas about what the nature of the metarules (if any) are like; when people find out that other people have different ideas, that's leave-in-a-huff time. It's so common because there are so many possible interpretations: (ehird) There are no metarules, more or less; although it's best not to scare off other people because the game is better as a result (ais523) The rules are the rules, follow them, and see how well you can do working around them (Goethe, I think, correct me if I'm wrong) Certain parts of the game, such as the CFJ system, are important and have to stay above petty scamming, or the game will become unplayable Three pretty much incompatible viewpoints, I think. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: >>> Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals >>> court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no >>> longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of rules, and >>> we might as well quit." Back then, several players really meant that. >>> Thankfully, the appeals court at the time was an honorable one. A body of >>> law is only as good as its defenders: Is the game currently so bankrupt >>> as this? >> >> It's an interesting test. I'm not asking the appeals court to choose a >> blatantly illegal judgement, I'm asking them to pick a particular legal >> judgement rather than a particular different legal judgement. Really, >> the Protection Racket hasn't got much use so far; I want to see what >> happens. (Counterargument: this is defending the law, the law allows an >> appeals court to pick one appropriate judgement over another, and it is. >> Judicial discretion + bribery = an interesting situation.) > > How can you have the audacity to even suggest with a straight face that > a REMAND of a guilty that was wholly uncontested is appropriate? Why > should anyone bother to judge anymore knowing that they will have to > fight tooth and nail for even trivially correct judgements in the face > of blatant dishonesty? It's not an "interesting test", it's complete and > utter bullshit that is frankly destroying something I have enjoyed for > nearly eight years. I really, really hope somebody does something > comparable to something that you enjoy one day. > Because it's a scam that can, in fact, be fixed by proposal..
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
Warrigal wrote: > I see one way this panel can avoid breaking any rules. With the > support of two of BobTHJ, ais523, and H. CotC Murphy, I intend to send > the following message on behalf of judge of CFJ 2273a: "This panel > recuses itself from CFJ 2273a." BobTHJ and ais523, please support; it > will only speed things up. You could also intend to make it judge AFFIRM. BobTHJ is (I assume) prohibited from supporting by the Protection Racket, but you and ais523 aren't.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
ais523 wrote: > Besides, I think the appeals case is entirely about determining the > appropriateness of a judgement. It is clearly inappropriate now (and > equally clearly appropriate at the time it was made); and the case is > about which of these should be relevant. The point in favor of "was" is parallelism with AFFIRM and OVERRULE (which explicitly refer to past appropriateness). The point in favor of "is" is "but we /wants/ it". > Finally, merely breaching the rules on an appeals judgement is, > strangely, not illegal. It's failing to satisfy obligations that is > illegal. (Relevant here are rule 2157 and CFJ 1953.) When the panel fails to deliver an appropriate judgement on time, then the panelists can definitely be dinged. In general, though, you may have something there - R2141's "a rule may ... proscribe certain player behaviour" counts as an explicit obligation for players to avoid violating the rules, but not for non-players (because we still haven't really resolved the border between non-players wishing to participate and non-players not wishing to participate). Proto-proto: Voluntary participants remain bound by the rules even if they deregister, unless they explicitly request otherwise. Reduce the 30-day limit on re-registration to 2 weeks if they don't so request.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
My opinion on all this is that the game of Agora will not be destroyed until its recordkeepors stop recordkeeping and nobody knows what the state of the game is. People CAN break the rules; that's why we CAN exile them and they generally CANNOT do more than a certain amount of harm. If a bunch of people cooperate and cause the criminal system to fail, maybe we should change the criminal system so that more people are required to make a judgement final. As it is now, the Protection Racket has three first-class parties (BobTHJ, Taral and ehird) and about twenty first-class non-parties. I think they're outnumbered. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In Monopoly, Risk, or any other game, no matter how well the rules are > written, if the game is ruined because [snip] This is not those games. And they are not breaking the rules, merely bending them in a very persistent fashion. I sympathise with you, Goethe, but I think the problem is really that those who seem bent on finding ways in which the Rules are broken (in contrast to ways to break the rules) are not fixing them. Proto-proposal: Fix it AI=3 Create a power-3 rule entitled "Obligation to repair" with the text: Players who exploit flaws or gaps in the rules SHALL, to the best of their ability, propose a proposal that fixes the flaw or gap so exploited. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On 28 Nov 2008, at 16:44, Kerim Aydin wrote: sniveling little rules-breaking shit Go away until you stop making repulsive personal attacks on players, please.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: >> It's not an "interesting test", it's complete and >> utter bullshit that is frankly destroying something I have enjoyed for >> nearly eight years. I really, really hope somebody does something >> comparable to something that you enjoy one day. > > > So why not fix the rules instead of complaining about it? In Monopoly, Risk, or any other game, no matter how well the rules are written, if the game is ruined because you are playing with a sniveling little rules-breaking shit, the game is ruined because you are playing with a sniveling little rules-breaking shit.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On 28 Nov 2008, at 16:28, comex wrote: Is registering partnerships as part of a scam *really* worse than all other crimes ever committed under the criminal system (none of which has gotten an EXILE afaik)? Add the fact that you could have trivially violated the spirit of the rule by rotating bases, but didn't (partly because you didn't know...) - you were honest about the violation. it wasn't sneaky.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the ninny to > exile. Is registering partnerships as part of a scam *really* worse than all other crimes ever committed under the criminal system (none of which has gotten an EXILE afaik)?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Nov 28, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Elliott Hird wrote: On 28 Nov 2008, at 15:56, Benjamin Schultz wrote: Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the ninny to exile. Next time I will appeal that. As is your right. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:20 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > How can you have the audacity to even suggest with a straight face that > a REMAND of a guilty that was wholly uncontested is appropriate? Why > should anyone bother to judge anymore knowing that they will have to > fight tooth and nail for even trivially correct judgements in the face > of blatant dishonesty? It's not an "interesting test", it's complete and > utter bullshit that is frankly destroying something I have enjoyed for > nearly eight years. I really, really hope somebody does something > comparable to something that you enjoy one day. What would destroy Agora is, I think, inappropriate judicial arguments that weren't contested. The judgement itself normally doesn't actually matter. Incidentally, I encourage you to think of an ingenious way to actually punish comex for eir scams. Actually, I have a better proto: remove criminal and equity CFJs altogether, and move inquiry cases to a-d. The judicial system is too important to put inside a nomic where it can be scammed, and influence the game. And if criminal cases didn't exist, it would give people an incentive to actually obey the rules. When there are no criminal cases, not obeying the rules is cheating. When there are, not obeying the rules is suddenly doing something is OK if you're willing to accept the punishment for it, it seems. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So can we please examine this appeal on its merits? > It has none. For gods sake you confessed to the crime and the judgement > was trivial on facts. To say that your "already tried" scam is > "interesting" in any sense is sheer sophistry. How can an appeals court > be so gutless or corrupt as to do *anything* but affirm? I think it is interesting. If you want a punishment so badly, call another criminal case or hold your peace.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On 28 Nov 2008, at 15:56, Benjamin Schultz wrote: Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the ninny to exile. Next time I will appeal that.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On 28 Nov 2008, at 15:20, Kerim Aydin wrote: How can you have the audacity to even suggest with a straight face that a REMAND of a guilty that was wholly uncontested is appropriate? it's not the best option but it is not inappropriate. It's a scam. So what? It's not an "interesting test", it's complete and utter bullshit that is frankly destroying something I have enjoyed for nearly eight years. I really, really hope somebody does something comparable to something that you enjoy one day. So why not fix the rules instead of complaining about it?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:58 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > > So can we please examine this appeal on its merits? > > It has none. For gods sake you confessed to the crime and the judgement > was trivial on facts. To say that your "already tried" scam is > "interesting" in any sense is sheer sophistry. How can an appeals court > be so gutless or corrupt as to do *anything* but affirm? > > You think it's not okay to "just break rules with impunity." I believe > it's much worse to do it as a judge, and pretty much the end of a playable > game if it happens in appeals. Personally, I try not to break the rules, as far as I can. However, I do like exploiting loopholes within the rules, doing things that are technically legal. The point here is that the appeals are not in fact doing anything illegal; just exploiting a loophole in the criminal CFJ rules. CFJs are interesting, because they have little effect on the game. For instance, inquiry CFJs affect nothing but rule 217 and the CotC's report, as far as I can tell (apart from things like late judgement penalties). As a result, there's little incentive to scam inquiry CFJs, as it wouldn't accomplish anything. With criminal CFJs, penalties are being applied to players in-game. It's already been estabilished that comex broke the rules; there seems little dispute about that. So we're out of the "judicial truth" phase of what's going on, and into the "scam people out of punishment" phase. > How can an appeals court > be so gutless or corrupt as to do *anything* but affirm? If not affirming is legal, is that corrupt? Maybe we need some sort of equity for appeals CFJs. > I believe > it's much worse to do it as a judge, and pretty much the end of a playable > game if it happens in appeals. The problem is that CFJs are a metagame thing, more or less, at least when determining the truth of something. Criminal punishments aren't. Would you consider it acceptable if the appeals court said "The original judgement was clearly appropriate at the time, but we're ruling REMAND on a technicality due to a scam"? The game would be unplayable if judges lied and failed to consider the facts all the time. Stating what happened, then making the game-affecting parts of the judgement different... not so much. Proto: remove judgements from CFJs altogether. Just specify the outcome in the judge's arguments, and do criminal and equity cases [the only ones which actually affect gameplay] a different way. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Nov 28, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote: Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the ninny to exile. That would certainly be a just, though not necessarily satisfactory due to knowing we're trying to play a game with appeals corruption, result of a remand. -G. The problem is that the racket would have been attempted anyway. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the ninny to exile. That would certainly be a just, though not necessarily satisfactory due to knowing we're trying to play a game with appeals corruption, result of a remand. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > So can we please examine this appeal on its merits? It has none. For gods sake you confessed to the crime and the judgement was trivial on facts. To say that your "already tried" scam is "interesting" in any sense is sheer sophistry. How can an appeals court be so gutless or corrupt as to do *anything* but affirm? You think it's not okay to "just break rules with impunity." I believe it's much worse to do it as a judge, and pretty much the end of a playable game if it happens in appeals.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
Next time I will go with my first inclination and sentence the ninny to exile. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals > court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no > longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of rules, and > we might as well quit." Back then, several players really meant that. > Thankfully, the appeals court at the time was an honorable one. A body of > law is only as good as its defenders: Is the game currently so bankrupt > as this? Heh, thanks for the Favor, ais523... Goethe, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. REMAND is a legal judgement, but if you want to punish me for the scam, call a criminal case against me for a different rule violation -- in fact, I've agreed to a contract that you could use to have me support the initiation. There are lots: I was hoping to absolve myself and ehird of criminal blame by fiat (which, I think at least, is a reasonable consequence of a dictatorship scam). For example, you could criminal-CFJ me for violating the P99 contract by causing P99 to register with the same basis as another player. So can we please examine this appeal on its merits?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > Maybe judges worked harder then than now... criminal cases are > different because the defendant can (and often does) appeal them by > announcement (see http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/list.php?appeal=1, > looks at first glance like a disproportionate number of appeals are > for criminal cases), but inquiry appeals are often called for cases > whose judges published poor arguments, i.e. didn't work hard enough... s/judges/callers I think a convict being able to sole-appeal eir case isn't new either, but quite historical... It's also admittedly much higher traffic so harder for a judge to jump in. Anyway, my next proto should make folks happy...gutting equity though keeping contracts. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:36 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > > On Nov 28, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > >> happens. (Counterargument: this is defending the law, the law allows an > >> appeals court to pick one appropriate judgement over another, and it is. > >> Judicial discretion + bribery = an interesting situation.) > > > If the PR attempt to overturn CFJ 2273 succeeds, ais523 might have violated > > that rule. > > Indeed. I hereby publish ais523's admission of bribery in this matter > (above), so that no member of the appeals court may reasonably claim that > any crime committed due to bribery by such an appeals judgement was > performed unknowingly. Hmm... but I would have judged REMAND even without the bribe (after all, I'm not bribing myself), and BobTHJ, the only person who the bribe affects, would also apparently have judged REMAND without the bribe. Is this bribery? Clearly it's a bribery attempt, but it may have failed (or been moot). Also, I don't see any way to violate the paragraph of R911 that was posted. Failing to conform to the /purpose/ of something has never been illegal, as far as I know. "An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a particular statement."; how many inquiry cases have been called which were, say, an attempt to win by paradox rather than determine the veracity of a statement? Nobody's ever been caught out for that sort of thing before. Using things for purposes for which they aren't intended is part of the fun of Nomic, unless they specifically ask not to be. Besides, I think the appeals case is entirely about determining the appropriateness of a judgement. It is clearly inappropriate now (and equally clearly appropriate at the time it was made); and the case is about which of these should be relevant. Also: if someone is bribed, who is at fault? The person making the bribe, or the person accepting it? Finally, merely breaching the rules on an appeals judgement is, strangely, not illegal. It's failing to satisfy obligations that is illegal. (Relevant here are rule 2157 and CFJ 1953.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > Probably the slipping power of AFFIRM is a symptom, rather than the > problem itself; people are scared of AFFIRM because it makes a judgement > unappealable, and nobody, not the original judge, not the appeals panel, > has really bothered to look at the situation properly... Another symptom > of this is that new arguments keep coming up well after the original > judgement, often, where really they should have been considered earlier. The unappealable thing hasn't changed, I think it was "always" that way, so it's just attitudes somehow, don't know why. I have noticed Callers tend to put much less effort into arguments than they used to, and original judges aren't willing to judge "UNDETERMINED - lack of caller effort" as much. I wonder if the return of DISMISS would help. Don't know why the fear of Affirm is there either. Even an "unappealable" judgement can be effectively overturned by a new case if anything new comes up - precedent is something but not everything. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I personally am of the opinion that the first appeal of any case >> should rarely if ever be judged AFFIRM or OVERRULE, so I would have >> supported this even if ais523 didn't invoke the PR. > > A very old tradition is that we used to give a strong weight to AFFIRM > in the name of "this is a game, and judges work hard, and we should fucking > listen to them." I'm very, very, sorry that's dead. Maybe judges worked harder then than now... criminal cases are different because the defendant can (and often does) appeal them by announcement (see http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/list.php?appeal=1, looks at first glance like a disproportionate number of appeals are for criminal cases), but inquiry appeals are often called for cases whose judges published poor arguments, i.e. didn't work hard enough...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:26 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > A very old tradition is that we used to give a strong weight to AFFIRM > in the name of "this is a game, and judges work hard, and we should fucking > listen to them." I'm very, very, sorry that's dead. Actually, I agree. Appeals panels should judge AFFIRM and OVERRULE more often; at the moment, we seem to have a culture of "Oh, I can't be bothered to judge this appeal properly, just REMAND". We've been having too many appeals, recently; to some extent this is because we've been having poor-quality judgements in some cases, but also because there's more of a culture of appealing. Probably the slipping power of AFFIRM is a symptom, rather than the problem itself; people are scared of AFFIRM because it makes a judgement unappealable, and nobody, not the original judge, not the appeals panel, has really bothered to look at the situation properly... Another symptom of this is that new arguments keep coming up well after the original judgement, often, where really they should have been considered earlier. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Nov 28, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:06 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
Appeal 2273a
I spend a Favour to call in a Favour on CFJ 2273, specifying ALREADY
TRIED. I note that there are two appropriate verdicts for this
appeal,
AFFIRM and REMAND, and am using the Protection Racket to persuade
the
Dons to choose a particular option in it.
I intend, with support from two of {BobTHJ, Warrigal, the CotC},
to send
the following message on behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ 2273a:
Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the
appeals
court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements,
we're no
longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of
rules, and
we might as well quit." Back then, several players really meant
that.
Thankfully, the appeals court at the time was an honorable one. A
body of
law is only as good as its defenders: Is the game currently so
bankrupt
as this?
It's an interesting test. I'm not asking the appeals court to choose a
blatantly illegal judgement, I'm asking them to pick a particular
legal
judgement rather than a particular different legal judgement. Really,
the Protection Racket hasn't got much use so far; I want to see what
happens. (Counterargument: this is defending the law, the law
allows an
appeals court to pick one appropriate judgement over another, and
it is.
Judicial discretion + bribery = an interesting situation.)
--
ais523
But the appeal panel is not supposed to pick any old legal judgment
-- they rule on the appropriateness of the appealed case's judgment.
[R911/22]
An appeal case's purpose is to determine the appropriateness of
a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and
make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen.
If the PR attempt to overturn CFJ 2273 succeeds, ais523 might have
violated that rule.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >> Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals >> court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no >> longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of rules, and >> we might as well quit." Back then, several players really meant that. >> Thankfully, the appeals court at the time was an honorable one. A body of >> law is only as good as its defenders: Is the game currently so bankrupt >> as this? >> > I personally am of the opinion that the first appeal of any case > should rarely if ever be judged AFFIRM or OVERRULE, so I would have > supported this even if ais523 didn't invoke the PR. A very old tradition is that we used to give a strong weight to AFFIRM in the name of "this is a game, and judges work hard, and we should fucking listen to them." I'm very, very, sorry that's dead.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 08:06, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
>>>
>>> Appeal 2273a
>> I spend a Favour to call in a Favour on CFJ 2273, specifying ALREADY
>> TRIED. I note that there are two appropriate verdicts for this appeal,
>> AFFIRM and REMAND, and am using the Protection Racket to persuade the
>> Dons to choose a particular option in it.
>>
>> I intend, with support from two of {BobTHJ, Warrigal, the CotC}, to send
>> the following message on behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ 2273a:
>
> Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals
> court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no
> longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of rules, and
> we might as well quit." Back then, several players really meant that.
> Thankfully, the appeals court at the time was an honorable one. A body of
> law is only as good as its defenders: Is the game currently so bankrupt
> as this?
>
I personally am of the opinion that the first appeal of any case
should rarely if ever be judged AFFIRM or OVERRULE, so I would have
supported this even if ais523 didn't invoke the PR.
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: >> Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals >> court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no >> longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of rules, and >> we might as well quit." Back then, several players really meant that. >> Thankfully, the appeals court at the time was an honorable one. A body of >> law is only as good as its defenders: Is the game currently so bankrupt >> as this? > > It's an interesting test. I'm not asking the appeals court to choose a > blatantly illegal judgement, I'm asking them to pick a particular legal > judgement rather than a particular different legal judgement. Really, > the Protection Racket hasn't got much use so far; I want to see what > happens. (Counterargument: this is defending the law, the law allows an > appeals court to pick one appropriate judgement over another, and it is. > Judicial discretion + bribery = an interesting situation.) How can you have the audacity to even suggest with a straight face that a REMAND of a guilty that was wholly uncontested is appropriate? Why should anyone bother to judge anymore knowing that they will have to fight tooth and nail for even trivially correct judgements in the face of blatant dishonesty? It's not an "interesting test", it's complete and utter bullshit that is frankly destroying something I have enjoyed for nearly eight years. I really, really hope somebody does something comparable to something that you enjoy one day.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On 28 Nov 2008, at 15:06, Kerim Aydin wrote: Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of rules, and we might as well quit." Back then, several players really meant that. Thankfully, the appeals court at the time was an honorable one. A body of law is only as good as its defenders: Is the game currently so bankrupt as this? yes. Also, the judgment is not blatantly illegal, it's just not the one most would choose.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:06 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a
> >>
> >> Appeal 2273a
> > I spend a Favour to call in a Favour on CFJ 2273, specifying ALREADY
> > TRIED. I note that there are two appropriate verdicts for this appeal,
> > AFFIRM and REMAND, and am using the Protection Racket to persuade the
> > Dons to choose a particular option in it.
> >
> > I intend, with support from two of {BobTHJ, Warrigal, the CotC}, to send
> > the following message on behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ 2273a:
>
> Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals
> court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no
> longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of rules, and
> we might as well quit." Back then, several players really meant that.
> Thankfully, the appeals court at the time was an honorable one. A body of
> law is only as good as its defenders: Is the game currently so bankrupt
> as this?
It's an interesting test. I'm not asking the appeals court to choose a
blatantly illegal judgement, I'm asking them to pick a particular legal
judgement rather than a particular different legal judgement. Really,
the Protection Racket hasn't got much use so far; I want to see what
happens. (Counterargument: this is defending the law, the law allows an
appeals court to pick one appropriate judgement over another, and it is.
Judicial discretion + bribery = an interesting situation.)
--
ais523
