Walker
On 4 Apr 2011 21:37, "Kerim Aydin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> ============================ Appeal 2982a ============================
>>
>> Panelist: Murphy
>> Panelist: G.
>> Panelist: omd
>> Decision:
>> ========================================================================
>
> Murphy, omd:
>
> I think in the current circumstances it would be good if a panel could
> come to some consensus precedent on what considerations of correct TIME
> OUT levels should be. To start discussion, I'll note:
>
> 1. For an officer, even a 1-day timeout makes the office Assumed,
> which is a set punishment regardless of length of timeout. This wouldn't
> be an effective punishment for a non-officer.
>
> 2. Jumping to 4 days might be a next level; it mildly penalizes/
> postpones some voting (it would be more of a punishment if for example
> dependent actions were restricted to active players, but that's not the
> case). Assuming timing of Distributions is independent gives something
> like a 50% chance of a vote not being counted.
>
> 3. Seven days (missing a round of voting) seems like the next obvious
> level and high enough to bound current discussion.
>
> I'm tempted to say the current case and with Walker's consideration
> of circumstances might warrant 4 days. (7 days does seem much, but I
> agree apology is insufficient). Thoughts?
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>
>
