Updated Rules

[Tom]

I've updated the "rules" for the courthouse slightly. Read them again

The most important change is that I've clarified that we don't want to discuss hypothetical, theoretical, "what if" scenarios during arbitration of a case. If player X has done Y then that is the topic to be discussed. "but would it be a violation if he had done Yb?" is not a question that belongs into the discussion of the case, simply because he hasn't.

Hypotheticals have their own place - Questions & Answers.


My hope is that this will streamline the case discussions and lead to faster results and less ill will because the waters get less muddy.

[Anaris]

Now, I know I'm not a Magistrate and have no real weight here—but isn't that sort of thing sometimes necessary when deciding if something is a violation?

Sometimes you need to take something that's a known violation and see if it's really analogous to the current situation, in which case the current situation is a violation.

[De-Legro]

Now, I know I'm not a Magistrate and have no real weight here—but isn't that sort of thing sometimes necessary when deciding if something is a violation?

Sometimes you need to take something that's a known violation and see if it's really analogous to the current situation, in which case the current situation is a violation.

The general feel I get from Tom about these cases is that if you are starting down the path of Hypotheticals, you are reading too much into the rules and over complicating things.

[Tom]

Now, I know I'm not a Magistrate and have no real weight here—but isn't that sort of thing sometimes necessary when deciding if something is a violation?

Sometimes you need to take something that's a known violation and see if it's really analogous to the current situation, in which case the current situation is a violation.

You often need to think a little beyond the current case, in order to decide if you really want to make this call. Too narrow is as bad as too wide. But too narrow isn't a problem right now. Too wide is. And that "beyond the case" thinking should be the problem of the Magistrates. In a real court, a lawyer arguing wide away from the case at hand would be quickly stopped by the judge. It is the job of the judge to think about unintended consequences of his ruling, it is not the job of the lawyers to argue a dozen hypothetical cases.

And my experience is very clear that someone arguing for a case by bringing up a slightly different hypothetical one is usually trying to pull a fast one on you. The trick even has a name in rhetorics, but I'm too tired to remember and too lazy to look it up right now.

[Norrel]

And my experience is very clear that someone arguing for a case by bringing up a slightly different hypothetical one is usually trying to pull a fast one on you. The trick even has a name in rhetorics, but I'm too tired to remember and too lazy to look it up right now.

A straw man?

[Fury]

Here are some other terms:

• Assumption: that hypothetical situations = tricks
• Referencing (similar past case files): of which there are none so best option is to bring up a similar situation that has the similar points you want to make (that are being rejected in the current case)
• Generalization: that because situations are similar but not the same, therefore we are comparing apples and oranges
• Personal attacks: using sarcasm, abuse, etc. to dismiss other people's points without needing to examine its merits

Any IR violation that can be explained in one sentence will not need 6 lines to say why it is not (a violation).