On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:04 AM James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes > anyway: > > small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that come > with a > > punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of > "justice as > > a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith > actors/actions." > > If some justice is intended to be a game mechanic, I'd prefer the > crimes related to those to not be described as rule violations (SHALL > NOT, etc). > It doesn't really sound fun to me for the written rules of a game to > deliberately not be an accurate description of the expected boundaries > of gameplay. In the card game "cheat", for example, it's generally > understood that deception is part of the game and allowed by the > rules, and I don't think the punishment for being caught is considered > to be punishment for a rule violation. > > If people feel there is a convention that some "SHALL NOT"s are not > really expected to be followed, maybe R2152 should be amended to make > that clear. > > James > My personal opinion is that people should follow SHALLs and refrain from SHALL NOTS only to the extent that social or legal punishment outweighs the benefits of breaking those rules. (Obviously this doesn't apply to truly morally repugnant conduct like racist slurs, spamming the forums or anything of that sort, which should be refrained from by all because of basic decency) -- >From R. Lee
