Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
To be fair, I was not certain that Agora would accept Fookiemyartug's
retroactivity mumbo-jumbo, hence my reason for stating that it was a
test. I did however search the ruleset first to see if there was any
clear conflict with my actions. In hindsight, I didn't consider the
last paragraph of R478 when drafting up the Fookiemyartug contract,
and if I had honestly considered it I might have been deterred from
attempting the Fookiemyartug scam.
Actually, this sways me towards accepting this Unreasonable Agoran's
innocence. Perhaps honestly believing that you have a *reasonable argument*
which *will* stand up in court were you the judge should be enough of a
standard. Often I've researched a scam and missed the critical line
or word (e.g. in R478) that kills it. We don't want to discourage loophole
searching completely, and this one is no different than when Zefram and I
registered the Pineapple Partnership and claimed it was a person in the
first place (we just got a more sympathetic judge! :P )
But when the point of controversy is immediately made clear (as with the
PP), the recordkeepors who needed to track quantum gamestates (until the
issue is resolved either judicially or legislatively) can get started on
doing so right away. The longer this revelation is delayed, the more
past messages they have to go back and re-examine, so the more difficult
the task becomes. (Ratification is a standing acknowledgment that
certain levels of difficulty aren't worth the effort.)
