On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Sean Hunt<[email protected]> wrote: > Distributability is a mess and has significantly removed the > attractiveness of submitting proposals. It is an oversolution to the > problem of bad proposals getting into the system.
Distributability has been around for a few days in its current form. > The punishments for breaking rules are not only disproportionate to the > penalties, but also completely out of proportion in general. Example: As > Tailor, I could publish "No one has any Ribbons." as my report. This > would, if left undoubted, destroy all Ribbons one week later, and the > penalty for such is one measly Rest. This is not a general case, this is a bug. Intending to ratify such a report is a Class-8 Crime (the highest defined class of crime in the ruleset). Feel free to propose adding a similar penalty for incorrect self-ratification. > I think that penalties for proposals should be awarded based on getting > heavyhanded rejection of proposals (VI < 0.5), with one "free" proposal > each week to avoid stifling players like distributability does. This > also allows higher-clout players a higher degree of safety. Bad judges > should be penalizable at the option of the appeals panel. I don't know > what the penalties should be, as this is a very invasive change, but I > think it needs to be done. We could just have such rejection remove players' Notes-- the previous VC system had plenty of ways to lose currency, including for submitting bad proposals.
