Keba wrote:
> Proposal: "We live in hard times" (AI=3, II=1, undistributable)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2125 by adding this text to the last paragraph:
>
> Violation of a Rule is a Class-2-Crime.
>
> [2 additional Rests for each Crime, because players should not think
> violation is ok, only because destroying a Rest is not expensive.]
> }}}
I withdraw the Proposal and submit a new one: "Hard times, tape
two" (AI=2, II=1, undistributable, co-author: omd)
{{{
Amend Rule 2230 by replacing:
When a NoV becomes Closed, a number of Rests are created in the
possession of the Accused equal to the Class of the specified
Crime, or in its absence the Power of the violated rule, rounded
up.
with:
When a NoV becomes Closed, a number of Rests is created in the
possession of the Accused two higher than the Class of the
specified Crime, or in its absence the Power of the violated
rule, rounded up.
[2 additional Rests for each Crime, because players should not think
violation is ok, only because destroying a single Rest is not
expensive.]
}}}
I intend, without 3 objections, to flip the Proposal entitled "Hard
times, tape two" to distributable.
[Let me quote the IRC to explain this: (times are GMT+2)
(00:59:13) comex: Keba: that's a bad idea
(00:59:27) Keba: comex: why?
(00:59:30) comex: (I think)
(00:59:31) comex: because then you could prosecure someone for either
the rule that says you can't violate rules, or the rules you actually
violated
(00:59:38) comex: and the accused could use that to his advantage
(01:00:54) comex: well, you can only be punished once per action
(01:01:14) comex: so you could NoV yourself and close it
(01:01:34) comex: I'm not sure whether noving again for the other rule
is possible these days, but it would be an arguable violation of R101
anyway
]
--
Keba
