> In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes anyway: > small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that come with a > punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of "justice > as > a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith actors/actions."
If some justice is intended to be a game mechanic, I'd prefer the crimes related to those to not be described as rule violations (SHALL NOT, etc). It doesn't really sound fun to me for the written rules of a game to deliberately not be an accurate description of the expected boundaries of gameplay. In the card game "cheat", for example, it's generally understood that deception is part of the game and allowed by the rules, and I don't think the punishment for being caught is considered to be punishment for a rule violation. If people feel there is a convention that some "SHALL NOT"s are not really expected to be followed, maybe R2152 should be amended to make that clear. James
