On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> 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.
I don't think it's so broken; I think judges not be thinking about it
correctly. I think a reasonable test under the current rules for a judge
to use might look like:
1. Is the action obviously against the (equity-sense) intent of the
rule, and therefore a scam?
2. Does finding the alleged scam require a careful consideration of
the phrases in question (as opposed to being made illegal by some third
rule in some other place that no one noticed)?
3. Is the unawareness due to missing a simple and unarguable piece of
language, once pointed out (e.g. "creation was not permitted", "there's
a 'NOT' in front of the 'MAY'")? (as opposed to a phrase that really can
be read in multiple ways?)
If so, the fact that the scammer must have read the rule with a
"legalistic" frame of mind looking for a scam and loophole makes it
unreasonable ("beyond reasonable") for em to believe e was not breaking
the rule due to missing the obvious bit.
-G.
