Roger Hicks wrote: > 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).
Ah, I misunderstood. I didn't read carefully enough, and I thought you wanted to ratify a convenient falsehood. My apologies. If it's a matter of interpretation.... As a matter of personal opinion, I think that it would be better to have even a drastic and wrong judgement than no judgement at all. Currently we must treat dependent actions as at least potentially broken, which in practice means almost the same thing as having them actually broken: we can't use them. Ruling, even falsely, that yes they definitely are broken would at least resolve the ambiguity. It is for this reason that Agorans customarily follow judicial precedents they believe to be wrong (once the appeals fail). In many cases, and I believe this is such a case, it is more important to have a definitive answer than to have a right one. I recommend a penalty of either SILENCE with no more than two Rests or APOLOGY with no fewer than three prescribed words, whichever BobTHJ prefers.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
