Oh you meant sidestep on the part of the cardee. I thought you meant from the perspective of the referee. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Just object/get an objection lol > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 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
