On 5/30/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A system that allows a judicial scam to succeed by legitimizing an improper > judgement is no longer a judicial system worthy of Agora. Agorans put > great store in their legal system, so such a system is un-Agoran. The reason > the First Great Scam (Lindrum World) caused such a split with a 50% > degregistration is because it did just that, legitimized an improper (and > incidentally illegal) judgement. Did we fight the Lindrum Wars for nothing > (*cough*). > > Also, a legal system is only as good as those defending it. In CFJ 1346, > many commented that "if the Appeals Court had allowed this judgement to > stand, we would no longer be playing Agora, and we would have quit", as > to allow a scam based entirely on a self-interested and collusionary > judgement is the most fundamentally un-Agoran action. At the time of > CFJ 1346, the people defending the system, and the system itself, were > strong enough to stand against it. Crisis averted.
Hmm... I can see your point here. CFJ 1346 is indeed pretty similar to this one-- it was initiated as a scam, judged as a scam, it explicitly tried to award bonuses to the scamsters but failed... but then again, not really. It seems from the case archive that CFJ 1346 was called and judged for mainly political reasons, with the assumption that it would work (nothing special, save the poetry), in order to work within the existing judicial system to subvert it and/or some players. Its victory would prove that politics meant more to Agora than an impartial judgement. CFJ 1932, on the other hand, was called merely to exploit a little bug in a new rule. There is no evidence that the case was political, nor that its judge had any intent to sabotage the integrity of judgements, nor that anyone distrusts the equity courts based on the existence of such a one-off scam, any more than CFJ 1651 convinced Agora that the tradition of sufficiently long and reasonable judgements had passed away. Perhaps a bit right now, it being so fresh in the mind, but as more equity cases are called, we will forget about this silly case. While CFJ 1932 may be pushing it a bit with respect to the impartiality of the judicial system, I would think that the recent attempt to destroy all rules would be a little more "resign from the game" than it.
