If no one else is interested in preparing a draft for this, I’ll get to it later this weekend.
> On Jun 6, 2020, at 13:54, James Cook via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 17:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> 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. > > I remember this topic being discussed, but I don't remember an actual > proto. So much has been going on lately that I'll readily believe > there was such a proto. Closest I could find was this by nch (May 27, > subject "Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills") > >> Referee Cards were fun, and there's no reason they couldn't work with an >> asset >> system like the upcoming Sets (except for the confusion of names). You'd just >> make Green and Yellow payable with different amounts of Blot-B-Gones, and Red >> would probably not be payable at all. >> >> 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." > > and then later from you: > >> Sure, that's why you divide things into felonies, misdemeanors, traffic >> fines, civil offenses, etc. But you write that into the law so it's clear >> you don't use the same language for all of those. In a game sense, in this >> iterative social contract (where your "reputation" is part of the >> trade-off) it's good to be clear between "yeah that's part of playing the >> game, we'll give you a blot but we won't be mad" and "we're going to yell >> a lot, consider your victory tainted, and try to hit you with heavy >> penalties". Just so we all get along better, you know? >> >> We don't have that right now - our "Class N" system is really incomplete >> and inconsistent. Previously (when we had differential designations we >> didn't have any violations where we didn't say that it was either a Crime >> or Infraction (that is, every SHALL NOT was paired with whether it was a >> Crime or Infraction). We'd have to go to every SHALL NOT in the rules and >> categorize it to set this up again. >> >> It's especially important if we want to give the Officers any duties that >> involve exploitable powers - want to be clear "we're giving you these >> powers and don't expect you to abuse them, or the subgame is ruined." >> >> -G. > > - Falsifian
