On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Comments inline
Comments on comments inline...
> > The voting strength of a player on an Agoran Decision is reduced
> > by 1 for every 3 weevils in eir possession.
>
> Voting strength is an integer, right? I kind of like the idea of this
> immediately reducing voting strength -- we could do that by allowing
> fractional strengths or by multiplying all strengths in the rules by 3.
I don't mind the idea, but don't want to bring major changes to the voting
system into this directly (keeping it modular), so will save this for later.
> > At the beginning of each quarter, half (rounded down) of each
> > fugitive's weevils are destroyed.
>
> Maybe not just fugitives? Currently all punishments wear off if ignored for a
> while, and I'm inclined to believe that is a good thing. This may also
> encourage
> deregistration to get rid of fines. Also also, this will never let a person
> get
> down to zero. Not sure if that's a good thing or not.
I'm neutral on making it decay for players, though I'm not worried about the
"deregistration to avoid punishment" given that a minimum 30-day timeout is
a punishment in itself.
The "never down to 0" is on purpose - it requires someone returning even after
a long absence to make a token gesture of penance. It was a feature of the old
system and the source of the "fugitive" list in the Herald's report.
> > - If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime,
> > then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is the power
> > of the rule that was violated, rounded up.
>
> Not sure if power is the best way to guess rules importance; I think it would
> be
> rather arbitrary most of the time.
I'm all ears if anyone has another system for a baseline "guess"...? Just a
fixed number - maybe 2 - unless a crime is defined?
> > Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the
> > investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable,
> > specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology. If e
> > does so, the perp CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge the value
> > of the fine up to a maximum of 3 weevils from emself by publishing a
> > formal apology of at least 200 words and including all the specified
> > words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for
> > self-improvement.
>
> If the fine is 4, can I apologize for 3? If so, make that more clear.
The wording was tricky on this bit. I wanted:
- the apology to not expunge past crimes. So if you had 2 from an old
crime, and got another 1 labelled "forgivable", you couldn't apologize
for 3, just the 1 from the current crime.
- the max reduction to be 3, so if you had a forgivable crime of 4, you
could remove 3 and be left with 1.
How about:
"CAN expunge either the value of the fine or 3 Weevils, whichever is
lower"?
(does that wording mean you can't expunge at all if they're equal?)
> > If the Referee attempts to levy three or more INEFFECTIVE fines
> > in a week, any player CAN, with two support, issue a writ of
> > Impartial Arbitration Restoration, immediately making the position
> > of Referee vacant. When a writ of Impartial Arbitration
> > Restoration is issued, the ADoP SHALL initiate an election for the
> > Referee within a timely fashion.
>
> Should we add "players SHALL NOT hold the office of referee when such a writ
> is published"?
Not sure what you're trying to prevent here. The way it reads, you SHALL
not do something for an instant when the writ is published?
