What about a system in which punishment packages were assigned without 3 objection or with Agoran Consent? The problem I see arising is that a player breaks the rules harming a second player, but then the game votes does not consent to punishing player one because they like em better than the second player. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 07/14/17 05:45, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> I agree with all of o’s opinions. I would also like to add that it could be
>> a good idea to add some form of Summary Judgement to save time for clear-cut
>> things. Also, I don’t like requiring Agoran Consent for the punishment to
>> occur. What about implement punishment and require Agoran Consent to
>> overturn punishment?
>
> I was intending to replace the PM's Dive with a sort of Summary
> Judgement where e can assign (still subject to Agoran Consent) a
> punishment package without the judgement process beforehand.
>
> I'm _strongly_ against assuming punishments work and then sorting it
> out. If we take the platonic approach, that's incredibly messy. You
> could be reverting a week's worth of asset creation, destruction, and
> transfer alongside any agorana decisions in that time. If you do it
> pragmatically (the punishment was in effect until it wasn't), then eir
> assets still potentially got used for profit by other players, and eir
> votes didn't count.
>
> Automatic assignment works currently because the punishments are highly
> restricted. This system has harsher maximums, and so assigning them
> should be more difficult. The benefit is that punishments can be better
> tailored to the crime and the perp.
>
> As a general note, I prefer that actions in Agora have a higher standard
> to perform and are consequently turned over less frequently. We play
> largely platonically, and the whole 'attempt things and find out if they
> worked later' ethos is very dangerous to that underpinning.
>
>> ----
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 14, 2017, at 4:24 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 using GPGMail
