On Jul 13, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As for crimes themselves, what follows is the proto text:
>
> {
>
> Crimes are divided into Classes, and Levels. Each Class specifies
> general qualifications and appropriate punishments. Low Level
> crimes are variants that occur through negligence and/or have minimal
> impact on game flow. High Level crimes are variants that occur
> intentionally and/or have significant impact on game flow. Punishments
> appropriate to Low variants of a crime class are also appropriate to
> High variants of the same class.If we move away from treating individual rule violations (SHALL/SHALL NOTs and otherwise) as crimes to a more general system, I would want to see a very clear philosophical basis for the goals of this system. I don’t have to agree with it to vote for it, but I would need to understand what it is. I did see that you categorized existing infractions, broadly; would it be worth codifying that somewhere, or is this to be left up to the discretion of the officer assigning the case? > Faux Pas is a class of crime that represents poor form and violations of > procedure that do not involve abusing agreements or specially granted > powers. > > Appropriate Low Punishments: > > -Cause the perp to transfer 1-5 shinies to Agora. > -The perp SHALL write an apology, including up to 10 required words > chosen at the Punisseor's discretion. Does this recur? That is, is it a Faux Pas to fail to write such an apology? I would generally like to see the optional nature of apologies preserved. A Yellow Card recipient may opt not to apologize, without incurring any further punishment - but if e does, eir voting strength remains at zero for the duration. That kind of alternative community service is important: not every player is apt to write to demand, and in any case compulsory speech is morally suspect. > Vow Breaking is a class of crime that represents breakages of > agreements. > > Appropriate Low Punishments: > > -If the crime involved not giving or receiving promised assets, cause > the perp to transfer the amount (of the same type(s)) of assets > promised, to the entity they were promised to. This is startlingly close to the notion of an equitable remedy, in the judicial sense. You may well be reconstructing contract law, but from the courts backwards rather than from the obligations forwards. > Appropriate High Punishments: > > -If the breakage involved not giving or receiving assets, cause the perp > to transfer up to twice the amount (of the same type(s)) of assets > promised, to the entity they were promised to. This breaks down in the face of non-fungible assets, but I like the bones of it. Maybe the owed asset, and one or more assets that are, collectively, of approximately equal worth in the eyes of the officer? > -If the breakage involved a Promise, the perp SHALL NOT make promises > for up to 4 weeks. I’m on the fence on this. Pledges and promises are mechanically interesting and a subtle part of Agora’s texture. Quashing someone’s promises for a full month seems extreme. > -If the crime involved an office, cause the perp to resign from > that office. I’d be sad to lose the separation between the formal judgement that someone is unworthy of their office and the practical punishment of being removed from it. It gives officers who make serious errors of judgement or character some opportunity to make amends, if the players as a whole are willing to grant some clemency. Overall, I like the idea. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
