On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 10:14 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 6/6/2020 9:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >> E.g. "Certain actions are defined as infractions - these incur penalties > >> but not rule violations per se. Certain actions are defined as crimes. > >> You're breaking the rules if you do those. Really, don't do those." > > > > That would be nice. Is that how crimes and infractions were > > distinguished in the past? > > > > - Falsifian > > > > No, I don't think we've ever been explicit about that. > > It was there implicitly, to a degree. The penalty structure was different > (higher penalties for crimes), and the method of finding fault made the > "crime" process more serious (you had to be convicted in court for a > crime, but an infraction was a direct penalty that could be applied by > announcement). And the Agoran custom was at the time was to shrug at > infractions but always apply them (i.e. pretty much any late report would > earn you a blot infraction, IIRC, so a greater fraction of players carried > blot balances - side note that's what made rebellion work) but hesitate at > crimes unless there was malice/strong intent. But there was nothing that > explicitly said "infractions aren't really cheating but crimes are > definitely cheating" or anything like that.
Let's make it explicit this time! I like it when things are explicitly written out. :) -Aris
