I think we broke Naylrod
Also, nice signature Reni
There is a contradiction here. First of all Mihai claims that rules are more detailed in dictatorship regime, while you claims the opposite.
There is no contradiction, simply a semantic problem. You and I are discussing the detail in which laws are written in order to avoid confusion, which tends to be the case in democratic societies and less so in dictatorships (but only broadly speaking). Mihai, on the other hand, is exploring the esoteric reaches of individual laws, which indeed tend to be more whimsical in oppressive regimes. I'm surprised neither of you noticed you were not talking about the same thing.
There is no "spirit of law" (maybe a scope or goal of law can exist, but not spirit)
Again, semantics, only here your semantic claim is also false. "Spirit of the law" is, indeed, the scope, goal, and desired effects of a law. I was not the first to use the word "spirit" for this, so I'm simply following definitions - surely you of all people would respect that.
Even of the word "spirit" offends you in this context, surely you see my intent.
while "intent of the legislator" must be well represented there without the need to explicitly write this phrase in verdict.
"Must" - but sometimes it is not. when that is the case, the court is required to interpret the law.
Generally courts need to choose the right law to apply (well this can even be considered like interpretation), and not to interpret the law.
If this were true, being a judge would have been a very easy, even clerical task. that is not the case - the primary requirement of a judge is that they have a good sense of judgment.
The only exception is the Constitutional Court which checks the laws and has the right to nullify them besides the desire of lawmakers (parliament).
No one is talking about nullifying laws - we're discussing their scope. Whether or not a law applies to a given case or not may well require some interpretation in some cases.
Reni, I will ask you again, look it up - don't make me create a boring post filled with applications of this in actual verdicts in various democracies (probably just the US and UK, since this is the English forum
). You will find that in your country, too, these phrases appear in verdicts. By saying this, both now and before, I am making a statement of fact. You are trying to counter it with a theory of law, but you can't do that, because I am talking about an established fact (what is), and you're talking about generalized theory (what ought to be). I won't even mention Hume's naturalistic fallacy in this regard. I will just further simplify: I have made an observation. I want you to consider the meaning of my observation. If you're going to tell me that my observation is incorrect, you have to do this on a factual basis.
In short... Look it up!
If you don't use the first meaning of a word you have to explicitly explain that. And every word (even with multiple definitions) has a primar definition. That is not the case in cheating FAQ anyway. There is used the primar meaning.
And herein lies your biggest mistake. You seek to apply definitions to things that are supposed to serve as "the rules", and you treat these things as law. But there is no ordered lawbook here; the law is informal, that is,
based on an understanding between players rather than on dictation. In essence, whoever wrote the rules only used words that they thought made clear enough their intent - just like in normal speech, where I may use any combination of words even if their definition is not precisely what I intended, just so long as you understand me. When that is the case, misunderstandings are resolved by either interpretation of intent (what I have done a few pages ago by explaining that cooperation was not the problem being battled, but rather, the reduction of active accounts into aide position), or by asking the person for their intent. At no point does semantic evaluation of the words used enter into the equation, except as an aide in ascertaining intent.
I'll explain this again, shorter and simpler now: A lawbook aims to be complete and unambiguous, and thus every word there needs to be considered in its precise definition. An explanation does not, it seeks only to be understood. The FAQs are closer to the second than the first. Therefore, your nitpicking of what definition the words have is out of place.
Now, you may want to claim that there
should be a clear, unambiguous, lawbook-style rule set. You can do that, but let us not confuse what is and what ought be. Right now, that is not the case.
In my opinion, also, that is ill-advised. You will notice that rulebooks tend to be very thick, and require years of study to be understood fully. Do you know all the laws in your country well? I doubt it. I know I don't know my own, and that disturbs me. In real life, lawyers are used to help the uneducated masses know their legal responsibilities. That is not practical, or desired, here. Making a bloated rulebook for Imperia just means that 95% of players will not even know the laws they are breaking; a simple explanation (as exists now), despite being open to some interpretation, conveys the intent of the rules much more efficiently.
(In this respect it bears mentioning that I have an alternative grasp of what state law should look like, but that is for another discussion).
I agree 100%, but not that definitions are shaped by perception. Not because is not like that, but because this perception is clearly already affected.
That's for another discussion, already; some other time perhaps
Sorry, but i don't understand your questions. I consider that my fault, because english is not my mother's tongue. Maybe you can rewrite them in a more simpler way (is is possible)
Damn, and I though I
was being simple.
I'm afraid it's going to be a while before I get around to learning Albanian... And longer still before I can debate in that language
Oh well, read my above statements, I think they show pretty well where I think you have an error. Please consider these points carefully.
P.S.
I'm really happy to have a debate like this. Is not that you find every day ppl like you and Mihai in internet forums.
Thanks! I'll have you know, I'm enjoying this immensely!
