See? This is where your problem lies. No one agreed to anything. We stated our opinions and thoughts on how to deal with a cheater. There is no agreement. We simply share a viewpoint.

Viewpoint sharing is collusive! FOCUS! Make intentionally bad trades with cheaters! Defend his right to be treated fairly even though he tried to cheat the league! I keep broccoli in my socks and an aluminum foil hat to protect me from the aliens! I demand FOCUS randomly from people because I didn't get enough attention as a child! Scientology is the One True Path! Opinions are the Devil's Tools!

Quote: Originally posted by cjlancaster on 2/24/2010

 See?  This is where your problem lies.  No one agreed to anything.   We stated our opinions and thoughts on how to deal with a cheater.   There is no agreement.   We simply share a viewpoint.

Viewpoint sharing is collusive!   FOCUS!   Make intentionally bad trades with cheaters!  Defend his right to be treated fairly even though he tried to cheat the league!  I keep broccoli in my socks and an aluminum foil hat to protect me from the aliens!  I demand FOCUS randomly from people because I didn't get enough attention as a child!  Scientology is the One True Path!  Opinions are the Devil's Tools!

Quote: Originally posted by gjello10 on 2/24/2010

[snip]
"I will do X to cause an owner to have an unfair disadvantage" "I also will do X to cause harm to cause an owner to have an unfair disadvantage" You forget intention.

I'm not forgetting anything.  I almost never do.  Intention is immaterial to this discussion.  Deal-making is.  "Collusion" requires a deal.  Quid pro quo.  I do this, then you do that.  Announcing that I'm doing this irrespective of what you do (though I think it would be great if you also did it) is NOT collusion.  It's merely announcing what I'm doing.  And it doesn't preclude others from announcing that they are doing the same thing.  As soon as one person's behavior becomes conditional on another person's behavior, collusion becomes possible.

Intent to cause harm is very much material to collusion. You are mistaking conspiracy and collusion.

Intent is, indeed, material to collusion in general.  However, FOCUS, it is not material to this particular discussion because collusion requires deal-making as well as negative intent.  Since there is self-evidently no deal-making, and since everyone who has expressed the general sentiment that they will veto every trade involving fRAPERcaper (or any other confirmed cheater) has done so in such a way as to indicate (or at least imply) that they would veto even if they were the only veto, then the discussion stops there.  Intent becomes immaterial because there is no deal around which a collusion charge could be based.

Quote: Originally posted by coldfeet on 2/24/2010in society, one who breaks the rules of society loses his rights as a free citizen.why should a cheater be protected by fair play guidelines that he ignored?

Quote: Originally Posted By The__Kid on 2/24/2010
You say collusion requires deal-making. Why? Because you said so? [no. because collusion is a word, and words have meanings, and that's a part of what collusion means. I say the sky is blue, but the sky is not blue because I said so. It's blue because it is, in fact, blue. And collusion, in fact, requires a deal. Quid pro quo. Reciprocal arrangement.]

Let do this: Do you think that having a group of owners say that they will not trade with an owner or veto any fair deal with that owner is fair play?