On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Because it's a scam that can, in fact, be fixed by proposal..
