Again, this is just a proto, not a proposal of any sort. Differences
from the previous version are marked with comments after them. In a
reverse of normal email conventions, the comments are marked with a
leading > character on each line.
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.
> This has been changed from month to week, so that the period of time
> a player is exiled for after accumulating too many rests is less
> random.
At the start of each week, 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 about half a year 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.]]
> I've defined terms for each stage of restfulness, to make things
> easier to refer to.
Owning any positive number of Rests is a Losing Condition. A person who
owns no rests is called "musical".
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
Points 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. A person who owns at least 4 Rests is called
"flat".
While a person owns at least 8 Rests, that person CANNOT spend Notes
except to destroy Rests e owns. This takes precedence over any other
rule. A person who owns at least 8 Rests is called "out-of-tune".
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. A person who owns at least 12 Rests is
called "tone-deaf".
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. A person who
owns at least 16 Rests is called "chokied".
> Increased the amount for exile to give some space between chokeying
> and exiling. Also fix a loophole that might allow exiled players to
> avoid deregistration if they were quick enough.
While a player owns at least 24 Rests, that player CAN be deregistered
by any player by announcement, and CANNOT spend Notes even to remove
Rests, despite the rest of this rule. A person with at least 24 Rests
CANNOT register; this takes precedence over any other rule. A person
with at least 24 Rests is called "exiled".
While a person owns at least 36 Rests, any person CAN destroy a Rest in
that person's possession by announcement. [[Thus anyone can cause
themself to own no more than 35 Rests, and therefore limits the maximum
exile period to 84 days. Longer exiles than that are best done by
proposal, in my opinion, as they are something really quite special.]]
}}}
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.
> FINE and APOLOGY are handled differently now; see below.
> 13 is chosen here so that people can be chokied no matter what the
> rule breach, but chokeying a player off a power-1 rule is very easy
> to get out of if the player was musical beforehand.
* DEAFNESS with an integer (the penalty) from 1 to 13 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.
> Tweaked the numbers to match the change to non-player tuning-up over
> time.
* EXILE with an integer (the excess) which is from 0 to four times
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 24 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 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.
}}}
> A new way to handle APOLOGY and FINE. Basically, they are alternative
> punishments that the ninny can use in order to save themselves a
> couple of Rests.
Create a power-1.7 rule called "Alternative Punishments" with the
following text:
{{{
When a judge issues a sentence of DEAFNESS, they CAN (but do not have
to) choose to allow the ninny to perform either or both of the following
actions, specifying any relevant information. If the judge allows an
action and the ninny performs it, then two fewer Rests than would
otherwise be created (to a minimum of 0) are created when the sentence
has been continuously in effect for at least a week; this takes
precedence over rule 1504.
* APOLOGISE by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words,
including a set of up to ten words chosen by the judge when they
allow the action, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and
ardent desire for self-improvement.
* FINE themself a valid amount of one currency, where the currency
and amount are specified by the judge when they allow the action.
An amount is only valid if the currency's backing document binds
the ninny or the ninny has that amount of the currency, and the
backing document specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount
is no greater than the maximum. In order to perform this action,
the ninny must either destroy that amount of eir currency or
transfer it to the Lost and Found Department.
}}}
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 the rule breached. 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 the power of the breached rule. 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). When creating new ways in which
rules can be breached, players SHOULD define such breaches to be summary
breaches if and only if it is generally obvious whether a breach has
occurred.
}}}
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
* rule 1871
this paragraph:
{{{A breach of this rule is a summary breach.}}}
> Failure to judge is ILLEGAL anyway, so avoid double-jeopardy by
> specifying no penalty for being recused.
}}}}
--
ais523
