DIS: Re: BUS: (corrected) Judgement: CFJ 3383

2013-08-12 Thread Fool
Of course, defining "bad form" in nomic is a minefield, and a blanket ban would be a bad idea when part of the game is exploring these limits. But what about a rule prohibiting clear, unambiguous and severe breaches of good form, with clear malign intent? Or a rule with specific prohibitions (e.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (corrected) Judgement: CFJ 3383

2013-08-07 Thread James Beirne
Yeah, I struggled a lot with this. I decided 21 in the end after comparing other sentences of TIME OUT. 7-14 days seems typical for repeated neglect of duties and this seemed a bit more extreme to me. On 2013-08-07 9:57 PM, "Craig Daniel" wrote: > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Tanner Swett wro

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (corrected) Judgement: CFJ 3383

2013-08-07 Thread Craig Daniel
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > Oh, and further arguments: I think that the "please treat Agora right good > forever" clause is vague enough that it should not be punishable in cases of > negligence, but only in cases of actual malice. > > —Machiavelli I opine that a small

DIS: Re: BUS: (corrected) Judgement: CFJ 3383

2013-08-07 Thread James Beirne
For the record, I support an appeal. On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 7 August 2013 20:18, omd wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:28 AM, James Beirne > wrote: > >> Judgement: GUILTY/TIME OUT (21 days) > > > > I intend to appeal this judgement with two support, as I d

DIS: Re: BUS: (corrected) Judgement: CFJ 3383

2013-08-07 Thread Tanner Swett
Oh, and further arguments: I think that the "please treat Agora right good forever" clause is vague enough that it should not be punishable in cases of negligence, but only in cases of actual malice. —Machiavelli