On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:34 AM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:27 AM James Cook via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 16:14, Rebecca via agora-discussion >> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:11 AM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < >> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> > >> > > > On Thursday, 28 May 2020, 17:03:57 GMT+1, James Cook via >> > > agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> > > > > 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. >> > > >> > > I fully agree with this. It's fine to have actions where "you're >> allowed >> > > to do this >> > > but there will be consequences", and it's fine to have illegal >> actions, >> > > but please >> > > don't mix the two. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > ais523 >> > > >> > >> > isn't law in real life exactly this though? there are plenty of things >> like >> > littering that people often do (and attract relatively small >> consequences) >> > that are just as illegal under law as, say, murder. >> > -- >> > From R. Lee >> >> There are a couple of differences in my mind. >> >> First, I never really agreed to my local laws. >> >> Second, at least for some games, the rules are the whole point. I >> wouldn't find a game of chess very fun if my opponent were trying to >> move pieces while I wasn't looking. It's not what I signed up for. I >> feel this way about Agora too. Admittedly I feel it less strongly in >> Agora than in chess, maybe because Agora's rules are much more vague >> and complicated. Still, if this is a game, it seems like the world >> "rules" should be used for the ground rules, i.e. the basic underlying >> structure people are expected to follow. >> >> - Falsifian >> > Well chess is a game in which there is no distinctions between CANs and > SHALLs, except I suppose in tournament play with regards to the chess > clock. In Agora, I find the CANs paramount and the SHALLs not particularly > important, as a general rule. > -- > From R. Lee > If someone attempted to sneak a piece behind the back of another, that person would no longer be playing chess, because the rules of chess have no concept of such a thing, and therefore don't punish it in a chess way. -- >From R. Lee
