> > 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.
What kind of action would deserve a larger penalty? My intuition is that most of the SHALLs and SHALL NOTs relate to mistakes or laziness, and some kind of punishment and/or attempt at equity probably makes sense in those cases, at the risk of making them transactional. I think the kind of thing we would care about most isn't in the rules at all, e.g. from R. Lee's message: > (Obviously this doesn't apply to truly morally repugnant conduct like > racist slurs, spamming the forums or anything of that sort, which should be > refrained from by all because of basic decency) I guess one reason these aren't in the rules is that it's unnecessary: thankfully, Agorans seem to have the described basic decency. But suppose one day we did have to write something on this level into the rules, because something turned out to be non-obvious to new players. Would it make sense to attach a punishment? Or would it be more effective if we set it aside from the other rules, with an implied "listen, this isn't part of the whole crime-and-punishment game; just don't do it"? - Falsifian
