On 6/6/2020 10:28 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >>> This is great! but I'm likely to vote AGAINST unless we get a >>> crime/infraction distinction and this becomes an infraction, i.e. not >>> actually against the rules. >> >> Is this something that is currently being proposed, or no? I know >> there's something related to blots and stuff in the proposal pool >> currently, but I don't remember what it actually does. If not, I could >> probably add some form of that to the proposal. > > No, G. sketched an idea in the thread "Rule Violation Options" but it > hasn't been turned into a proposal yet. The idea is that actions > defined as "crimes" are rule violations but actions described as > "infractions" aren't, but still incur penalties.
Wasn't there a longer proto before that, by someone else? The final draft would have to include going through all current SHALLs and SHALL NOTs in the rules and classifying them, amending a lot of rules (I definitely wasn't leading the drafting on that!) -G.
