On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:24 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > As is, I don't think there's a lot that can be done. The PRS was acting > > not-in-accordance-with-expectations due to a mistake, so that can be > > solved equitably, but the gamestate will have changed a lot in the > > meantime. Technically speaking, BobTHJ's award of the second point to me > > was ILLEGAL (although it worked), but a court case on that would have to > > be UNAWARE, as at the time we both believed it worked. > > I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more thinking of > the equity; what is an "equitable" solution to making a mistake that > resets all other members' points? I'm not too bothered with "gamestate > changing" issues, equity is more interesting when you're finding recompense > for things that "can't be put exactly back." In other words, is there > more equity in the "worth" of the single point (one point) or the relative > worth (the value of that point in how it changed all holdings and awarded > a win). -goethe
I just love the irony of that happening on the 100th point... -- ais523
