On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: >> 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.)
How can you have the audacity to even suggest with a straight face that a REMAND of a guilty that was wholly uncontested is appropriate? Why should anyone bother to judge anymore knowing that they will have to fight tooth and nail for even trivially correct judgements in the face of blatant dishonesty? It's not an "interesting test", it's complete and utter bullshit that is frankly destroying something I have enjoyed for nearly eight years. I really, really hope somebody does something comparable to something that you enjoy one day.
