>You can have a scam that uses a hidden, unintended loophole that is perfectly legal when pointed out/CFJd, and you can have a scam that comes from, say, an Officer violating a SHALL NOT.
Well, yeah. But then we can get into if it was a violation of their officer SHALL NOTs or some other kind of crime. Like in Gaelan's case where he tried to hide an apathy win in a report. Consensus was split about whether his officer powers was a part of the crime (scam) or not. On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > What constitutes a scam or not is also at times very subjective. > > The point is not what constitutes a scam. The point is what constitutes > breaking the rules. > > You can have a scam that uses a hidden, unintended loophole that is > perfectly legal when pointed out/CFJd, and you can have a scam that > comes from, say, an Officer violating a SHALL NOT. > > Anyway, this doesn't ask if an action was a "scam" or not. It says > "if you got your win through doing something ILLEGAL, you didn't win." > > Still, if people don't think it's broke, no worries. > > -G. > > >
