On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: >> Scams are and have been rendered ineffective for the most trivial >> reasons (annotations, decrease by -1), yet anti-scams with glaring >> mistakes are considered effective? > This is actually something that annoys me too. I suppose arguably R217 > provides justification for it; but it's a pretty weak justification, and > is scambusting really in the best interests of the game?
You know, maybe we're putting a little *too* much weight on precedent over judge's discretion? I think a better way to do it is put more weight on sustaining original judge's arguments (even if we disagree with them) and thus, this question becomes a question of whether you get a "scam-favorable" versus "status-quo" judge (and what kind of judges generally are a majority in the game). I'm not sure if this is worth legislating versus just generally suggesting a return to this--the only legislation I can think of might be making appealing inquiry cases a (Supporters-Objectors >= 2) consent process--thoughts? -Goethe
