On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > We need some type of system, as not all points of confusion are > settled via discussion leading to mutual agreement. Outsourcing > it to a contract could be interesting, though... >
Also, this gave me an idea about the fees' self-ratifications: - A player SHALL NOT purport to pay a fee that e cannot pay. - If a player purports to pay a fee, and e CANNOT do so only by reason of having too few ergs, the action takes place anyways and all eir ergs are destroyed. This is platonic. - After it's discovered, the player gains two Resistors. This is Pragmatic. - A player CANNOT pay a fee if e has a Resistor. - At the beginning of each week, one of each players' Resistors are destroyed. The penalty is two Resistors so that the penalty is the rest of the week when the penalty is given, plus one more week. Multiple offenses will each be worth 2 weeks, making them less attractive. Other prohibitions on playing ergs will not result in a gain of Resistors. The SHALL NOT is to ensure that the system is not abused. This may fall afoul of R101, so we'd need to be careful (man, I feel like the Canadian government). -coppro
