> On May 26, 2019, at 9:01 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:49 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> and, therefore, any attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE.
> ...wow, that's strange. Why the heck is rule 2531 designed to make
> the gamestate (whether fines are EFFECTIVE, and thus indirectly
> people's voting power) depend on so many "soft" factors? Including
> the legality of actions, whether someone "more likely than not"
> performed an action (according to whom?), and even whether or not a
> fine is "blatantly and obviously unsuited".
I think it’s important for there to be some strict conditions for the
POSSIBILITY of the referee blotting someone, precisely because it affects
voting power. We wouldn’t want it to be POSSIBLE for the Referee to ILLEGALLY
issue 40 blots to each player and exile em or negate their voting power, and
create a dictatorship that way.
It might be a good idea to amend the rule so that failing some requirements
make the fine IMPOSSIBLE, and failing other requirements enable a player to
remove the blots by some process (like through a CFJ). I’m not sure which
requirements should be in which category though.