On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 17:35 -0400, Henri Bouchard wrote: > Is this worthy of a CfJ?
CFJs are the whole heart of the game, for me, and the reason I play. I was in favour of the signatures rule mostly because it might lead to interesting situations like this that we could have judgements about, and based on the IRC discussion, there's definitely some controversy (as explained in the arguments). If there's any doubt at all, you want to get a discussion going because it gets discussion going and gives you something to do. CFJing just formalizes all that process. Also, this particular CFJ potentially has ramifications for gameplay later. However it's decided, it's likely to set a precedent for future scams that work by disguising game-affecting actions as signatures (or vice versa). I can't think of any such scams right now, which is pretty much the only reason I haven't tried. There may be one out there somewhere, though. -- ais523
