On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:59, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >> I guess I don't see the issue. The events that generate draws (officer >> salaries, player salaries, judging, winning elections, adopted >> proposals) are few enough that players can fairly easily track what >> draws are owed to them and take this into account when determining how >> many cards to hold. I don't think an UNAWARE defense would hold water. > > It would in my court, and I would raise it every time and clog the courts. > And no... I have no idea when a dealer will actually deal me cards. What if > e doesn't deal until Thursday and I take a long weekend? It gives the > dealer a lot of power in terms of timing. > >> Aren't all criminal actions we define "gameplay" penalties? > > No. That's not what the Courts are for. This is in fact a very old debate - > when you quantify penalties, are you making them mere calculated tradeoffs > or punitive preventives? But the way things are set up now...no. The main > feature of the courts right now is due process... you don't *need* to give a > player access to the full range of criminal guilty/not guilty proceedings and > protections for a simple "gameplay" penalty. Just apply the penalty and move > on (with naturally CoEs or inquiry cases if there's an issue). > I see your point on this issue.
BobTHJ
