Jason Cobb via agora-discussion [2022-08-29 13:23]:
> We now have a player who is directly responsible for three FAGEs. I
> believe that it's time we discuss a mechanism similar to the one below.
>
>
> Title: Unfortunately
> Author: Jason
> Coauthors:
> Adoption index: 3.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 869 by appending the following paragraph:
> {
>
> Banned is a secured negative boolean person switch. A person is
> unwelcome if e is Banned or if at least one part of em is unwelcome.
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an unwelcome person CANNOT
> register or be registered, and e is immediately deregistered if e is
> ever a player. Designations of unwelcomeness are secured.
>
> }
>
> }
I'll argue the following in principle. My only assumption is that there
has been an injustice commited by some member of our community against
another one.
We are all dreaming.
Agora is a colletive dream. As are all games, in fact. But games, of
Nomic or otherwise, invariably involve people, and people live real
lives. That creates a strange liminal space where fiction meets reality,
and rules for any longstanding game must legislate on actions that are
not bound by the limits of its fiction.
That is the case for rules defining concepts such as “people”, which
must by necessity conjure a bit of ontology. Or rules stipulating how
players are to be registered, or in which forums the matters of the game
are to be discussed. Or, as is the case, rules, or the abscence thereof,
that cristalize our community's position on injustice and its remedies.
That brings us to the proposal. It saddens and surprises me that we
should need something like it. In my innocence, I chose to believe a
game where all is possible would also be free from the messy politics of
the real world. But everything is political.
So be it. And so we must tread in choosing our policy on injustice:
politically. Not the fictional kind, but the real one, the one that
hurts.
I admire the simplicity of the proposal, as it lets the polis decide how
justice is to be carried out. It would seem to be neutral, atemporal.
But it's not. In adopting it, we would be stating clearly that we
believe in ostracism, and, most worringly for me, that we believe in
punishment for life.
I'm not arguing against these values, though I might in due opportunity,
but I'm stressing this: we are not dealing with fiction any more. This
is real. And so, we must not play.
Concretely, I believe a self-moderated community should implement a form
of restorative justice. I am not well-versed in this area, but I see an
opportunity for us to create something new and valuable. I posit we
should invest in the idea of a just Agora. We should take this
seriously.
Even more concretely, I point the following, just out of the top of my
head:
* Bans should not be permanent. There should be a way to appeal them,
and they should have time limits (though those can be unspecified and
unlimited). Times change, and so should we.
* We should have formal processes that implement some form of
restorative justice, upon whose failure, and only then, extreme
measures such as ostracism should prevail.
I don't believe in punishment, fiction notwithstanding, and so I don't
believe ostracism to be a punishment. It is – it must be – only the
final, most bitter remedy for an injustice so grievous, and so
collective, that there is no possible restoration. It is grave. I'd even
come to the point of saying it needs to be a unanimous decision.
Above all, if people are getting hurt, we must take this seriously.
--
juan
