On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 08:35, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 10:23 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Unfortunately for you, a judicial finding has still found that it's > > > regulated, regardless of whether or not the finding is successfully > > > appealed. > > > > I'm not sure why you think it matters if objecting is regulated or > > not. An Objector is a first-class player who has publicly posted an > > objection. Whether that person has an R101(ii) right to post that > > objection is irrelevant; as long as the objection is sent via a public > > forum that player is an Objector. If the rules were to forbid actions > > that are regulated and not explicitly allowed you could possibly try > > to punish players who post objections, but you couldn't prevent them > > from posting their objections and then becoming Objectors. > > Actually, I think that this is a genuine flaw in the scam, and have all > along. I thought it would be interesting to see how it played out, > though.
I think it was a pretty obvious flaw in your scam, which made me puzzled as to why you were attempting it. (Posting an objection is certainly POSSIBLE regardless of what the rules say, unless some bizarre definition objection is in play. And even if you had successfully made posting an objection ILLEGAL, what the heck would be the rule you'd cite in a criminal case, and who'd be your co-conspirators for the 2-support?...) So if you had purported to resolve your "without Objection" attempt, the resulting CFJ would pretty surely overturn it. But it still seems like a great test case for the "corruptive self-interest" thing, so thanks for that. - woggle
