On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:06 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 22:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2273a > >> > >> ============================ Appeal 2273a ============================ > > I spend a Favour to call in a Favour on CFJ 2273, specifying ALREADY > > TRIED. I note that there are two appropriate verdicts for this appeal, > > AFFIRM and REMAND, and am using the Protection Racket to persuade the > > Dons to choose a particular option in it. > > > > I intend, with support from two of {BobTHJ, Warrigal, the CotC}, to send > > the following message on behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ 2273a: > > Back in CFJ 1346, several players made a comments such as "if the appeals > court can be corrupted and deliver blatantly illegal judgements, we're no > longer playing Agora or have faith that we can respect a body of rules, and > we might as well quit." Back then, several players really meant that. > Thankfully, the appeals court at the time was an honorable one. A body of > law is only as good as its defenders: Is the game currently so bankrupt > as this?
It's an interesting test. I'm not asking the appeals court to choose a blatantly illegal judgement, I'm asking them to pick a particular legal judgement rather than a particular different legal judgement. Really, the Protection Racket hasn't got much use so far; I want to see what happens. (Counterargument: this is defending the law, the law allows an appeals court to pick one appropriate judgement over another, and it is. Judicial discretion + bribery = an interesting situation.) -- ais523
