On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:49 PM, omd <[email protected]> wrote:
> > But your anecdote suggests that you approach writing differently, so I
> > suppose my intentions here don't work for you. This makes me curious
> > where other players fall on the spectrum...
I would suggest a hybrid system. Punishment can be a marker that's
put on a wrongdoer, that prevents em from doing something while e has
it (voting, losing condition, or whatever), but e can do a task (from
apology, to paying a fee, to community service) to rehabilitate emself
and remove it. Makes it part of the gameplay while still punishing.
I personally like to see apologies, as you say it makes one pay
attention to the game but it also is something creative for others to
read.
In terms of which is harsher, that really varies depending on the
"economy" (or other gameplay) it's matched against. Right now I
think a week's ban on voting is very light, given the speed things
are happening, and the fact that a proposal distribution won't line up
with the punishment, so there probably be almost no votes that are
actually missed.
> I kind of like the community service idea. Do you remember how it
> worked in the past?
Like this:
* COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the
prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably and legally
perform, appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence
if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated
with the consequences of performing the tasks, and especially
if any other available non-null punishment would be either
unjust or insufficient. The balance between compensatory and
punitive service is left to the judge's discretion. While a
sentence of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform
the prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different
time limit is specified).
