============================ Appeal 3004a ============================
Appeal initiated: 21 Apr 2011 05:50:07 GMT
Assigned to ais523 (panelist): 24 Apr 2011 03:39:11 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist): 24 Apr 2011 03:39:11 GMT
Assigned to scshunt (panelist): 24 Apr 2011 03:39:11 GMT
G. moves to AFFIRM: 24 Apr 2011 04:57:28 GMT
scshunt moves to AFFIRM: 24 Apr 2011 10:28:24 GMT
ais523 moves to AFFIRM: 28 Apr 2011 20:28:24 GMT
Final decision (AFFIRM): 28 Apr 2011 20:28:24 GMT
Panelist G.'s Arguments:
AFFIRM. I would have given a harsher sentence myself.
Yally purposefully challenged the rest of Agora to see
if we could make something stick; such a scofflaw should
have a greater sentence, not a reduced one. -G.
Panelist scshunt's Arguments:
The initial sentence of TIME OUT in this case was seven days and was
upheld on appeal. Yally then subsequently violated eir affirmed
sentence, in an attempt to demonstrate the fact that no punishment
exists in the rules to deal with it. The appelant's arguments seem to
strongly rely on the original sentence being unjust, which is not the
case as judged by Agora as the verdict was affirmed.
The argument that e was demonstrating a loophole is an interesting one,
however. Different nomic players will tell you that violating rules in
performing scams is permissible or not. Moreover, the entire point of
this scam was to break a rule unpunished. However, it is vital that the
principle of maintaining legality in scams generally is upheld;
otherwise a player who could break a rule to obtain dictatorship without
consequence (by simply amending the rules to make the actions
unpunishable). Drawing another parallel to the case of a dictatorship,
once the dictatorship was lost, it would be natural for the nomic to
respond by punishing the dictator. Thus the argument that e was
demonstrating a loophole is a weak one at best.
The original verdict was found to be just, and a violation of it
certainly deserves stronger punishment than the original sentence. I see
no reason why the prior judge's approach is significantly incorrect.
AFIRM without prejudice.
Panelist ais523's Arguments:
I judge AFFIRM. If you're going to break the rules on the
basis that the punishment is ineffectual, don't expect the punishment to
change in order to balance things out the instant it becomes effectual.
The ninny is not just being punished for the original crime, but eir
blatant subsequent rule-breaking in an attempt to avoid punishment. I
don't think the punishment given is so extreme as to be a violation of