On Tue, 26 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 23:00 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> In any case, if I'm GUILTY I believe 8 rests would be an excessive >> punishment. > Agreed, and I would ask people to please stop putting large punishments > on things they fear would be scammed when they're far more likely to > affect legitimate play and not scamsters (who will probably have an > ingenious way to avoid them).
This particular high penalty is a legitimate general deterrent in that it's relatively easy for an officer to "slip past" a minor error in a long report as a scam, which should be frowned upon. And there have been many scams of that type. I'd suggest that it be either added to the rule (or set here as precedent) that it's not a crime if, in the intent to ratify, the officer clearly describes the general nature of the error and good of the game argument for ratifying it - letting well-informed players decide whether or not to object. [Naturally e can't lay out the specific error because if e knew its exact nature, there's probably much less reason to ratify]. -G.
