On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Actually, part of the purpose of the recent scam was to leave as little as possible to interpretation. For example, I would have bought Murphy's vote (or tried, at least) even if e had voted FOR, to ensure an unambiguous FOR*votinglimit instead of the current ambiguous situation. Unfortunately I goofed up wrt 5952 leading to the glut of CFJs; and of course the entire scam hinged around the increase clause. I actually didn't expect that the clause would generate so much controversy.
