How? ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Sep 23, 2017, at 7:40 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Without objection is too easy to sidestep > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:51 PM Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > The penalty card limits set out in rules 2478 (“Vigilante Justice”) and 2479 > (“Official Justice”) appear to be designed to prevent two problems: > > * abuses of finger-pointing, such as pointing one’s finger at every player, > or repeatedly pointing one’s finger at someone long past the point where the > allegations have been settled, and > > * abuses of the office of Referee, such as issuing an inordinate number of > Yellow or Red cards as part of an attempt to scam ballots. > > These are pro-active protections - they apply to prevent the actions, rather > than to address actions that have happened - and I think that’s important. > However, they’re structurally a bit shaky - the recent bug found in the > Referee rules that forces that officer to card every finger-pointing and the > rule requiring that the Referee receive a card for inappropriately issuing > cards combined to exhaust some of the limits this week, leaving the office in > a slightly odd state. With that in mind, I’d like to propose the following > reforms to the office: > > * Remove the limits on finger-pointing entirely. Replace them with a rule > along the lines that a player SHALL NOT point eir finger an excessive number > of times, or similar, and leave the determination of what “excessive” is up > to CFJs and the patience of the investigator. > > * Remove the limits on summary judgement. Continue to allow the Referee to > issue cards immediately in response to finger-pointing, but remove the > ability for the Referee to unilaterally issue cards: if the Referee is the > finger-pointer, or if no finger has been pointed, then the Referee can only > issue cards without objection. > > Thoughts? > > -o > > I generally concur. However, without objection is a mighty high standard to > meet. I think we can trust that someone will often object to being given a > card, and certain players have a habit of objecting to random things for no > apparent reason. That's at least two objections. Maybe with some amount of > support/ N agora consent would be better (support has the significant > advantage that there's no minimum time limit, so I might tend to go with > that). > > -Aris > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
