On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 1:03 PM Nch via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > -------- Original Message -------- > On May 28, 2020, 11:55 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/28/2020 9:42 AM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > If I accidentally moved a knight wrong and neither of us noticed until a > > move or two later, I broke the rules. But did I cheat? I don't think so. > > That's the distinction I'm trying to draw. > > > One of the issues is that we don't really do "equity" (we tried once, it > was complicated and interesting but I don't think it really worked). > By which I mean, if you discover the wrong knight (and it's not a > tournament), you can discuss with the other player: what's fairer and more > equitable: leave it where it is? Put it where it should be? Go back two > moves? Start over? That would also depend on whether the misplacement > led to the loss of a Queen, how important it was to the following moves, etc. > We don't really do that "adjust gamestate to make up for the violation" so > we have to reduce to a common currency and just discourage by applying a > game penalty. And as soon as it's "currency" it becomes transactional (as > R. Lee's comments show). > In fact, the first draft of the card system was meant to purposefully get > away from transactional punishment. A Green Card was meant to be a flag > and caution: "yes, you did break a rule and shouldn't have, but it didn't > really affect the game so Green". Making it a social contract that "you > really should have done that - doing that makes it less fun for all of us" > rather than "if you profited from this you can pay off the blot and not > worry". > -G. > > Equity itself is transactional though, because we're all players and any > transactions might affect all of us. In chess a judge could make a ruling to > even it out, but our judges are also playing at the same time. > > What about automatically blotting violations and then raise it to a justice > system when someone thinks the violation was intentional and maleficent? The > routine mistakes would be dealt with in a minor way with an easy system to > say "wait, this is more serious."
This is much of my thinking around the new indictment system. It will allow much larger penalties but with greater safeguards.
