On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 07:58 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > > So can we please examine this appeal on its merits? > > It has none. For gods sake you confessed to the crime and the judgement > was trivial on facts. To say that your "already tried" scam is > "interesting" in any sense is sheer sophistry. How can an appeals court > be so gutless or corrupt as to do *anything* but affirm? > > You think it's not okay to "just break rules with impunity." I believe > it's much worse to do it as a judge, and pretty much the end of a playable > game if it happens in appeals.
Personally, I try not to break the rules, as far as I can. However, I do like exploiting loopholes within the rules, doing things that are technically legal. The point here is that the appeals are not in fact doing anything illegal; just exploiting a loophole in the criminal CFJ rules. CFJs are interesting, because they have little effect on the game. For instance, inquiry CFJs affect nothing but rule 217 and the CotC's report, as far as I can tell (apart from things like late judgement penalties). As a result, there's little incentive to scam inquiry CFJs, as it wouldn't accomplish anything. With criminal CFJs, penalties are being applied to players in-game. It's already been estabilished that comex broke the rules; there seems little dispute about that. So we're out of the "judicial truth" phase of what's going on, and into the "scam people out of punishment" phase. > How can an appeals court > be so gutless or corrupt as to do *anything* but affirm? If not affirming is legal, is that corrupt? Maybe we need some sort of equity for appeals CFJs. > I believe > it's much worse to do it as a judge, and pretty much the end of a playable > game if it happens in appeals. The problem is that CFJs are a metagame thing, more or less, at least when determining the truth of something. Criminal punishments aren't. Would you consider it acceptable if the appeals court said "The original judgement was clearly appropriate at the time, but we're ruling REMAND on a technicality due to a scam"? The game would be unplayable if judges lied and failed to consider the facts all the time. Stating what happened, then making the game-affecting parts of the judgement different... not so much. Proto: remove judgements from CFJs altogether. Just specify the outcome in the judge's arguments, and do criminal and equity cases [the only ones which actually affect gameplay] a different way. -- ais523
