On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 13:54 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't think it should be automatic, I think it's up to players whether
> > to carry blots and live under a cloud or to pay to become immaculate.
> > But that's a detail. Care to do a proto of some kind? -G.
>
> Call them Rests and make it possible to cancel them out with Notes?
OK, this is just a quick proto and probably needs some work (and is
definitely not a proposal). One problem I forsee is that although this
seems to be Conductor-tracked for flavour reasons, it would probably
make the job of Conductor even more annoying than it already is; maybe
it would be better to create a new office for it. I'm also making an
effort in this proto to make penalising partnerships also penalise their
members, something which is reasonably unclear at the moment.
Proposal: Rests (AI=2, II=1)
{{{{
Create a power-2 rule called "Rests" with the following text:
{{{
Rests are a fixed asset, whose recordkeepor is the Conductor. Rests
CANNOT be destroyed except as allowed for by this rule [[or by a
proposal with an AI of at least 2, so that it can take precedence over
this rule]], and the creation of Rests is secured with a power threshold
of 1.7. Ownership of Rests is restricted to first-class persons;
however, if any positive number of Rests would be created in the
ownership of a non-first-class-person were it not for this sentence,
instead a number of Rests equal to the number which would have been
created is created in the possession of each member of that person's
basis. [[This makes members of partnerships somewhat liable for
criminal actions their partnerships take.]]
A player can spend a Note in order to destroy a Rest e owns.
[[Proto-proposer's note: Should this go in rule 2126 instead?]]
At the start of each month, one Rest is destroyed in the possession of
each first-class person who owns a Rest and is not a Player.
[[Punishments go down over time, until after 2 years a player is always
fully musical and has no tone-deafness restrictions. This also enforces
the timeout on exile, as non-Players cannot own Notes and so cannot
reduce their Note count any other way.]]
Owning any positive number of Rests is a Losing Condition.
While a person owns at least 4 Rests, that person CANNOT gain more than
one Point in each Agoran week; any points past the first that would be
awarded are instead not awarded. This paragraph does not take losses of
Notes into account; for instance, if a player with 4 Rests lost 4 Points
during an Agoran week, they still could not regain more than 1 of those
points later the same week.
While a person owns at least 8 Rests, that person CANNOT spend Notes
except to destroy Rests e owns. This takes precedence over the parts of
rule 2126 that allow for spending Notes.
While a person owns at least 12 Rests, that person CANNOT submit more
than 1 Proposal in each Agoran week, and any proposals past the first
each week that are nevertheless submitted by that player are immediately
removed from the Proposal Pool.
While a person owns at least 16 Rests, that person is in the chokey. No
person is in the chokey except as allowed by this rule.
While a player owns at least 20 Rests, that person CAN be deregistered
by any player by announcement. A person with at least 20 Rests CANNOT
register. [[I'd also like the patent title rules to be modified to
award a particular patent title when this happens.]]
While a person owns at least 24 Rests, any person CAN destroy a Rest in
that person's possession by announcement. [[Thus anyone can cause
themself to own no more than 23 Rests.]]
}}}
Repeal rule 2190. [[The new rule makes it redundant.]]
Replace all of rule 1504 from the text "Some types of sentence include a
duration known as the tariff." onwards with this:
{{{
The CotC's report includes the status of all active sentences.
The valid sentences are:
* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if
any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.
Has no effect.
[[Proto-proposer's note: Should we keep APOLOGY and FINE in the ruleset?
FINE of notes is obviously pretty redundant now, but FINE of other
things might still be interesting. Maybe an APOLOGY could be a way to
protect oneself from gaining a Rest that would otherwise be gained, to
give people the choice of apologising or becoming more tone-deaf?]]
* APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),
appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in
effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal
apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed
words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire
for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish
one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more
than once.
* FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule
breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the
currency's backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has
this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies a
maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the
maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours either
destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer it to the Lost
and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction or transfer per question on sentencing, even if
sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into
effect more than once.
* DEAFNESS with an integer (the penalty) from 1 to 10 plus three
multiplied by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly
broken, appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is
reasonably correlated with the size of the penalty, the largest
penalties being appropriate for severe rule breaches and the
smallest penalties being appropriate for rule breaches of minor
consequence. When a sentence of this type has been continuously
in effect for at least a week, a number of Rests equal to the
penalty are created in the possession of the ninny.
* EXILE with an integer (the excess) which is from 0 to the power
of the highest-power rule allegedly broken, appropriate if the
severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the
size of the excess, the middle of the range being appropriate
for severe rule breaches involving a breach of trust. When a
sentence of this type has been continuously in effect for at
least a week, then:
* If the ninny is a first-class person, a number of Rests is
created in the possession of that person sufficient to cause
that player to own a number of rests equal to 20 plus the
excess;
* If the ninny is not a first-class person, a number of Rests
is created in the possession of that person equal to five times
the excess, and the ninny is deregistered, and can never again
register.
An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal
case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by
announcement.
}}}
Create a power-1.7 rule called "Summary Breaches" with the following
text:
{{{
A breach of the rules can be a summary breach; a breach is a summary
breach if and only if defined to be so by a rule. Summary breaches have
an associated Rest amount, which can be defined by the rule which
defines the breach to be a summary breach, or otherwise defaults to 1
Rest. Any player CAN without 3 objections and by specifying an alleged
summary breach and its Rest amount cause a player who allegedly
committed that breach to gain that number of Rests; if Rests are awarded
this way, then the player in question is considered to have been
penalised for the alleged breach of the rules (whether or not it
occured).
}}}
Append to each of the following paragraphs:
* paragraph (a) of rule 2161
* the last paragraph of rule 1006
* the first paragraph and paragraph (b) of rule 2019
* the last paragraph of rule 2157
* the second unlettered paragraph of the newly amended rule 1504
* the first two paragraphs and the last paragraph of rule 2169
* the last paragraph of rule 2136
* the third paragraph of rule 2147
* the third paragraph of rule 2159
this text:
{{{A breach of this paragraph is a summary breach.}}}
Append to each of the following rules:
* rule 2154
* rule 2143
* rule 2201
* rule 208
* rule 1868
* rule 2158
* rule 649
* rule 2173
* rule 2135
* rule 2184
* rule 2185
this paragraph:
{{{A breach of this rule is a summary breach.}}}
Append the following text to rule 1871:
{{{A breach of this rule is a summary breach. Whenever a player is
recused with cause, one Rest is created in that player's possession.}}}
}}}}
Basically the theme is to force more and more penalties as Rests are
applied; apart from exile, the penalties are worded so as to not
restrict the gaining of Notes (1 point, and 1 passed or narrowly failing
proposal, are each enough to gain 1 Note). Summary breaches are a nice
lightweight (and easily make-sane-able) way to punish things like not
publishing reports on time, and we can fiddle with the amount later.
And yes, I did read the whole ruleset to figure out which breaches
should and should not be summary.
--
ais523
