On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 23:01 +0000, Quazie wrote: > All valid feedback. I feel like a high AI showed the gravity of the > offense, and i'm just throwing the idea out there - i'll wait until > Criminal Cases are re-established before i go further
Technically speaking you can put the AI above the rule power, there's just typically no reason to do so. Sometimes when creating/amending/repealing a Power>3 rule, players will set the AI of the proposal to the same as the Power of the rule, in order to say "look, I'm changing something important here, I'm not going to try to ram it through without as much support as it 'should' have". Note that an AI 3 proposal can do anything, so in theory, such proposals could be made at AI 3 and still work. The Power of the rule should not be above 3, though (and in fact should probably be lower; 1.7 seems about right). The Power system is mostly there to aid in blocking scams and in recovering the game from breakage, rather than to show importance of the rules. If you want to say "this is a really important, fundamental rule", perhaps something like "it is a Class 24 Crime to…" would work, with the very high number showing how serious the offence is. (Back when Crime classes actually had a defined meaning, 24 would mean that the Crime would necessarily result in instant deregistration if committed. Perhaps 12 would be more sensible; that means that the crime *could* result in instant deregistration but judges could choose to be more lenient. The highest number I think we ever actually used is 8.) -- ais523
