On Dec 20, 2007 3:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, comex wrote: > > On 12/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The statements I made regarding Fookiemyartug I believed (through the > >> retroactivity clause) to be able to be proven true. > > > > Interesting; if e did, then not even an APOLOGY is appropriate. > > The standard needs to be "would a reasonable player with the same information > (including knowledge of motives) believe the same thing?" Otherwise, anyone > can always avoid punishment by saying "I believed that [through a completely > and utterly unbelievable loophole] I would be proven true." > At the point in time where Fookiemyartug registered, the courts had not established that concepts/objects created by contracts had no bearing on Agora, except when recognized in equity court. I believe it was actually the nkep scam that solidified this line of thinking. While I agree it is for the best, at the time of Fookiemyartug's alleged registration, I had no idea that this is what would eventually be decided. Were anyone to CFJ on my statement that Fookiemyartug was a person and/or a contract, I would have ensured that the statement was true by taking on another partner (I had a non-player lined up to do this).
BobTHJ
