[blml] Worst Method in the World

[Robert Geller]

Guthrie writes:
>[Nigel]
>Jerry's analogy seems more apt than Eric's.
>
>*Civil* law is more relevant than *Criminal* law to bridge legislation. 
>If you rule *for* one pair you rule *against* their opponents. In 
>general, in such a context, "the balance of probability" seems a more 
>appropriate criterion than "beyond reasonable doubt".

Yes, exactly.   An ordinary committee hearing is like a civil case.

If, OTH, a player or pair is accused of a very serious offense like intentionally
passing information using means not authorized by the Laws then procedures
akin to a criminal trial (proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.)
should apply.

-Bob

-----------------------------------------------------
Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com