On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 13:36, Pavitra <celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: >> Arguments: I will accept whatever penalty the courts determine. In my >> defense I note that I am attempting to act within the best interests >> of the game (IMHO it is in the best interests of Agora for dependent >> actions to not have been broken for quite some time, which is - again >> IMHO - what has occurred if the rule is interpreted in the manner >> comex says it should be). > > It may superficially appear to be in Agora's best interests in the short > run to be able to use the courts to magically ignore bugs in the rules, > but in the long run the benefits of having the rules mean what they say > rather than what a judge would like them to mean is necessary to the > stability and integrity of the game. > I agree completely, and that is exactly what I am trying to prevent in this case. I believe that dependent actions ARE NOT broken. I have interpreted the rule differently than comex. By preventing this judgment from moving forward I have (in my opinion) prevent the courts from ratifying a falsehood (dependent actions are broken) that would have drastic consequences on the game (because if interpreted from comex's perspective dependent actions would have been broken long before my proposal recently amended the rule).
BobTHJ
