On Sun, 23 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: >> I'm sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. If this argument passes >> muster, I will personally lie and exaggerate about every game event and >> let you sort it out. -Goethe > > I'm not saying that it's good, merely that it could be worse. And if > your lies and exaggerations were similarly obvious, then they wouldn't > be /that/ troublesome. > > I'm also playing devil's advocate up front, in an attempt to preempt > appeals on the grounds of "you didn't consider X".
Ok, reasonable, thanks. You're right, it could be worse. I was thinking of Reports as an example. For example, if I made a Notary's report that dated the starting date of a Contest as May 3, 1853. It's an obvious exaggeration, so I'm not representing it as the truth, but it's still troublesome. So either you have a double- or multiple- standard depending on the level of exaggeration (allowed by players but not by officers, allowed if it's a huge exaggeration but not if its a small one, etc.), or you call all of it misrepresentation and let the sentencing level deal with the multiple standards... I'd prefer the latter, I think. -Goethe
