> On Jul 20, 2017, at 10:33 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 19:19 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: >> I agree with this carding. CuddleBeam has repeatedly shown that e >> cares neither about the feelings of the other players, nor about the >> interests of the game. As the player who spoke most strongly in eir >> support when this whole mess started, I believe this obligation falls >> on me. I intend, with 2 support, to Throw the Book at CuddleBeam. > > Huh, I just read what a Red Card actually does, and it feels fairly > minor for what's described as one of our largest punishments. Being > unable to effectively vote for one voting cycle is a fairly short > punishment. IIRC back when we had the Chokey, the most similar former > punishment I'm aware of, it halved voting power for a month. Several > other systems would have created negative assets that required > expending positive assets to get rid of.
An unexpended Yellow Card zeroes (rather than penalizing) voting strength for up to 30 days. In many ways, they’re a more severe punishment, as well as being a more interesting one. If nichdel’s reforms don’t pass for some non-trivial reason, it’s something I’d be interested in fixing. > Of course, in these days of Referee fiat, it's possibly for the best > that we don't have any particularly punishments. Perhaps we can change > that once criminal justice reform goes through. Agoran consent should absolutely be an element of any serious punishment. > (Note that this isn't to say that I believe CuddleBeam deserves a > larger punishment in this particular case; there are way bigger > potential breaches than this one, so the relatively small punishment > that's being applied in this particular case seems reasonably > proportionate and fair.)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
