On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, ais523 wrote: > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 11:02 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Well, I didn't up and deregister now... > > > > Maybe instead of bothering with judging these sorts of things (mister > > snuggles as a whole is equally irritating though amd523's cfj *could* > > have led to an interesting precedent at least). > > Yep, I'm a bit disappointed at the judgement, as it really misses the > point. There's not general knowledge as to who Mr. Snuggles is, nor is > there any rule that would prevent me (if I were Mr. Snuggles) lying > about it. (There is some reasonably strong evidence that it isn't me, > but nothing conclusive.) So I'm a little surprised that it's possible to > conclusively judge that I'm not him. Perhaps I should appeal.
I was going to discuss general principles of burden-of-proof weighing common knowledge with a player's testimony in the absence of other evidence and including burden-of-proof for UNDETERMINED, and implied differences in Criminal vs. Inquiry vs. Inquiry that would lead to Criminal, if it's of interest. (Not that I know what my judgement would have been, those were just my surface thoughts when I said "hmm, maybe I'll favor this.") -G.
