Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >> It has been pointed out to me that I misread Rule 2253, thinking it also >> provided an exception for creating cards, which it does not. > > Gratuitous: > When planning something that is clearly against the spirit of a rule, > claiming to misread something obvious is disingenuous. Scammers pulling > legalistic loopholes should be doing so at their own risk...obviously > a careful inspection of the rules in question is necessary just to > come to an opinion. Otherwise, what do we have left in the criminal > courts at all?
A very broken system. As the criminal rules are written, you don't even need to actually believe you were in the right, it just needs to be reasonable for you to have done so. I completely support criminal reform (N.B. my reform proposal would not have repaired this error) as the criminal system is broken in several regards. Could the CotC please submit the following as arugments: Someone will no doubt reference CFJs 1857a and 1858a as precedent. In this case here, I genuinely believed my actions were legal and had considered the actions and rules beforehand to ensure they were (I failed in this regard). In those two CFJs, root was well aware that the act was illegal, as a result e was definitely not ignorant. I consider it to be a bug in the rules that a player can be found NOT GUILTY if it is at all reasonable for em to have believed e was not breaking the rule, even if e did not believe so at the time. This does not change that the text of the rules take precedent, and honest mistake is a reasonable mistake. Only if the misunderstanding were unreasonable - for instance, someone had explicitly pointed out to em that the action was illegal - would it be possible to find someone GUILTY. > Accepting this defense would mean accepting that every > MAY NOT is broken because I can claim "I missed the NOT, I thought it > said 'MAY'. > > -G. Not because of that, because it would be reasonable for a player to make that mistake. -coppro
