On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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? > > It makes the CotC far too powerful, and chance of judge selection far > too powerful. Also, generally speaking a majority of judges will be > against any given scam, as if half of Agora were in on it we wouldn't > need a scam. If you're going to make judge selection that important, you > could wait until, say, comex was the only standing judge, then CFJ...
There are essentially two situations in which an anti-scam judge might deliver a pro-scam judgement: when the anti-scam interpretation would set a precedent contrary to the best interests of the game, or when the scam is not left to a matter of interpretation. It has always been the case that the most successful scams have fallen into one of these two categories. -root
