However, it is possible to have such things work on some level.
First, one important point. Commodifying crime (by making people buy off their penalty) changes the mentality from "I cheated and it's just plain wrong" to "that's the cost of doing business". With that mentality, at least for lower level crimes, you can accept gaming more aspect of it. (To make sure some things were still beyond the pale, you separate minor infractions such as missing reports from actual crimes that break the game so are still completely frowned-on cheating). The mechanic we had before was Rebellion, which could be called a kind of group-level duel. A person CAN make emself a Rebel. Being a rebel is punishable, you get blots. But you can raise a flag of rebellion. If you do, a random number is picked - with probability proportional to the % of rebels in the game, it succeeds, all rebels have their blots expunged, the leader of the rebellion becomes the Speaker or pm, and other bonuses. If you fail as a rebel, you get more blots. On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2017-11-04 at 08:56 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > unfair > > > > but that's the fun part lol. Also, kind of breaks monotony, Jungle Justice > > sounds like a lot of fun. have we ever tried being deliberately > > uncivilized? We seem to keep on wanting to go further into sophistication, > > how about the opposite? > > The problem here is that many of our rules are designed to keep the > game playable. If criminal justice is decided by a system unrelated to > whether the actual crime occurred or not, there's no reason for an > immoral player to obey the rules (as false accusations and true > accusations will have exactly the same effect, whether you accuse > someone of breaking the rules or not is a decision unrelated to whether > they were actually broken, and thus there are no consequences to > breaking them). As such, the rules will no longer have the desired > effect. > > -- > ais523 >
