On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 21:22 +0900, Paul VanKoughnett wrote: > More radically, I agree that Rests should go, or at the very least, be > reduced in scope. I think the game would be more interesting if each > crime had its own equity-style punishment. Making My Eyes Bleed, for > example, could require the offender to write or parse something > incredibly difficult in plain text. Endorsing Forgery could require > someone to forge an actual banknote and then send their picture over > the lists to see if it satisfies Agora. There could be more imposed > offices that require the offender to do powerless dirty work (The > Janitor is a good current example). Rests could be reserved only for > Restricted Behavior, where there is no ready-made punishment. Or, > again, you could make the whole ruleset Equitable, and judges are > forced to design their own punishments to fit the crime.
This whole concept worries me terribly; if the scope of punishments gets too far outside the game, it will make me seriously consider deregistering. Keep them within the game, please; APOLOGY's about the limit of what I consider an acceptable punishment with respect to what punishments can do (although a less severe punishment than 24 Rests, I consider it a more potentially dangerous precedent). This is, incidentally, what Suber's safety valve of preventing punishments worse than losing the game was about, which evolved into our R101(vii). As comex has pointed out recently, though, the power of rule 101 seems to have eroded somewhat recently; there were a couple of attempts to see if anyone could escape contracts by deregistering, but the precedent came back as "not if you keep on playing anyway", which is useful but doesn't answer the underlying question. -- ais523
